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 .
The amendment of 05/19/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claim 10 has been cancelled.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1–9 and 11–20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see page 9 of the reply filed 05/19/2026) regarding the rejections of Claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement set forth in the Office Action of 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Applicant states “To the extent the Office Action is styled as a written description rejection but relies on alleged lack of enablement in selecting and evaluating the first dopant and second dopant, Applicant respectfully submits that the present specification satisfies both the written description requirement and the enablement requirement.” Applicant then begins their argument about the scope of enablement rejection. This is the only mention of the written description rejection in Applicant’s remarks. The written description rejection and the scope of enablement rejection are separate rejections and should be argued on their own merit.
An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Per MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(ii), the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by (A) actual reduction to practice, (B) reduction to drawings, or (C) by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.
Applicant’s specification only provides three examples of a combination of a first dopant and a second dopant that satisfy the claimed spectral overlap integral (see Table 3 on instant pgs. 118-119).
None of these examples provide a spectral overlap integral near the endpoint 5.0 x 1014 M-1 cm-1 nm4.
These examples use only three examples of a first dopant (D1-1, D1-2, D1-3) and one example of a second dopant (2-1) whereas the claims allow for the first dopant to be any phosphorescent dopant and the second dopant to be any delayed fluorescent dopant. No further structure is required for the claimed first dopant or second dopant.
Accordingly, because the first dopant and second dopant are so broadly defined, the limited number of examples described in the written description do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-1-ii).
Additionally, Applicant has not presented an argument that their disclosure has a representative number of species to represent the entire genus of the claimed invention. Therefore, the written description rejection set forth in the previous Office Action is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments (see page 9 of the reply filed 05/19/2026) regarding the rejections of Claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for Examples 1–3 and Comparative Examples 1–3, and 6 of the instant specification, does not reasonably provide enablement for selecting the first dopant and second dopant set forth in the Office Action of 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Applicant argues that ordinarily skilled artisans in the field would be able to make and use the claimed invention, despite any experimentation that might be required. Applicant additionally argues that the experiments required to use the full scope of the claimed invention are not undue. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the Wands factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (See MPEP 2164.01(a))
The specification may require a reasonable amount of experimentation to make and use the invention and what is reasonable will depend on the nature of the invention and the underlying art. Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al., 598 U.S. 594, 596, 2023 USPQ2d 602 (2023). For example, "it may suffice to give an example (or a few examples) if the specification also discloses some general quality . . . running through the class that gives it a peculiar fitness for the particular purpose" and "disclosing that general quality may reliably enable a person skilled in the art to make and use all of what is claimed, not merely a subset." Id. at 611 (see MPEP 2164.01(a))
Applicant’s claim 1 is exceptionally broad for the selection of the first dopant and second dopant. The only requirement is that the first dopant is a phosphorescent dopant and the second dopant is a delayed fluorescence dopant. The instant specification discloses no general quality which may be used to select the first dopant and the second dopant. Therefore, in order to use the full scope of the claimed invention one would have to measure the absorption and temperature dependent emission spectra and then perform calculations on that data for a countless and ever-growing list of phosphorescent dopants and delayed fluorescent dopants.
While one of ordinary skill in the art could conceivably measure the singlet, triplet, and spectral overlap integrals, one would not be able to reasonably predict which combination of first dopants and second dopants would be expected to arrive at the claimed Expressions 1 and 2, and such an analysis for all possible first and second dopants would take an immense amount of time. Given that the first dopant is simply defined as a phosphorescent dopant and the second dopant is simply defined as a delayed fluorescent dopant, and no further structure is provided for the first and second dopants, the claims are directed to a vast array of first and second dopants. Accordingly, without undue experimentation to determine the claimed Expressions 1 and 2, one of ordinary skill would not know how to select the first dopant relative to the second dopant to arrive at the claimed Expressions 1 and 2.
Although the instant specification describes calculating the overlap integral and provides working examples, only Examples 1-3 satisfy all the limitations of the amended claims. Additionally, while the instant specification further describes the first and second dopants by Formulas 40, 50, 41, 51, 11 (instant ¶ [0178], [0244], [0271], [0294]), no such structure is required for the first and second dopants in the claims. As the instant specification does not provide sufficient direction or guidance on selecting the first dopant relative to the second dopant such that Expressions 1 and 2 are satisfied, such an analysis would take an immense amount of time for all possible combinations of first and second dopants which satisfy the claimed Expressions 1 and 2.
Applicant argues that even complex experimentation is not necessarily undue, citing MPEP 2164.01. However, the full quote of MPEP 2164.01 states “the fact that experimentation may be complex does not necessarily make it undue, if the art typically engages in such experimentation.” As discussed in the previous Office Action and below in section “(B) State of the prior art” the spectral overlap integral is rarely provided in prior art.
Based on these conclusions, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention of claim 1 without undue experimentation. Therefore, the scope of enablement rejection set forth in the previous Office Action is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the anionic Pt-complexes have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Applicant argues that the correct structures of D1-1, D1-2, and D1-3 are reasonably clear from the specification and that one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the structures as having a 4-tert-butyl pyridyl moiety. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A plain reading of the specification indicates that D1-1, D1-2, and D1-3 do not comprise a 4-tert-butyl pyridyl moiety (shown below). One would interpret them simply as drawn.
PNG
media_image1.png
167
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the interpretation of D1-1, D1-2, and D1-3 in relation to the 112 rejections, the Applicant has not pointed out how the instant specification enables one of ordinary skill in the art to use these charged complexes (or exotic Pt(III) complexes) as the first dopant in the claimed invention. Since D1-1, D1-2, and D1-3 are the first dopants of the three working examples within the instant specification, this further adds to the lack of guidance provided for the selection of the first dopant, as discussed in the previous Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments (see page 14 of the reply filed 05/19/2026) regarding the rejections of Claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2022/0093878 A1, hereinafter “Kim”) set forth in the Office Action of 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Applicant argues that the Office should rely on Applicant’s data instead of the prior art since Kim’s Compound S12 and Compound E2 are the same as Applicant’s Compound G and Compound H. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amendment to Claim 1 simply requires an overlap integral in a range of 0.5 x 1014 M-1 cm-1 nm4 to 5.0 x 1014 M-1 cm-1 nm4. Applicant has not claimed a specific method to measure the overlap integral, so any prior art overlap integral value that falls within Applicant’s amended range reads on the limitation. Kim teaches that Compound S12 and Compound E2 have an overlap integral of 4.89 x 1014 M-1 cm-1 nm4 [Table 10], which falls in Applicant’s amended range. In fact, compounds S1 to S8 and S10 to S13 all provide an overlap integral within Applicant’s amended range when paired with Compound E2 [Table 10]. Therefore, if Applicant believes Compound S12 is not suitable, compounds S1 to S8, S10, S11, and S13 may be used instead to read on Applicant’s amended claim 1. Thus, Kim anticipates Applicant’s amended claim 1 and the rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments (see page 15 of the reply filed 05/19/2026) regarding the rejections of Claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 2021/0257575 A1, hereinafter “Yoon”) in view of Tabata et al. (US 2020/0388781 A1, hereinafter “Tabata”) set forth in the Office Action of 02/24/2026 have been fully considered. The rejections of claims 1–8 and 11–20 have been withdrawn since Applicant’s amendment has narrowed the range of the overlap integral rendering them moot. However, the rejections of claim 1 and 9 read on Applicant’s amended range (see pg. 19 – 24 of the previous Office Action). Therefore, those rejections are maintained and expanded below in the Response to Amendments section.
Applicant argues that “the record does not identify any teaching or reason to target the presently claimed narrowed range with a reasonable expectation of achieving the reported device-lifespan improvement”. However, it is not persuasive for at least the following reason.
It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by Applicant. See MPEP 2144 IV.
Applicant appears to argue unexpected results however it is not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires at least the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP 716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b).
Applicant has not compared the closest prior art of a light-emitting device comprising mCBP (first host), Compound H37 (second host), Compound D1-3 (first dopant), and Compound D2-1 (second dopant) taught by Yoon in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132.
Applicant has also not shown that the unexpected results are commensurate in scope with the claims. As discussed above, claim 1 is exceptionally broad and the three working examples do not cover the breadth of the claim.
Additionally, Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 now recites a range for the overlap integral. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). The smallest overlap disclosed in the instant specification is 0.91 x 1014 M-1 cm-1 nm4 for D1-1 and D2-1 [Table 3]. Therefore, Applicant’s instant specification has not established that going below 0.5 x 1014 M-1 cm-1 nm4 would result in a device with inferior characteristics.
Applicant’s argument that the “finite number of identified, predictable solutions” rationale for choosing a host from a list oversimplifies claim 1 has been fully considered but it is not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Applicant argues that it would not be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to try using the exemplified host materials disclosed in Yoon. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
“A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
An "obvious to try" rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. " [A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Yoon teaches a host may include Compound H1 to H130 [0181]. Therefore, Yoon provides a list of suitable host materials which may be used in an organic light-emitting device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the exemplified host compounds taught by Yoon having the low driving voltage, excellent external quantum efficiency, and/or improved lifespan characteristics [0004] in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The invention of the prior art is not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the examples. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123.
Additionally, while the instant specification discusses how the combination of the first and second host and first and second dopant affect device performance, it is noted that improved device lifespan is not required by the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Applicant’s argument that the Examiner allegedly used “hindsight templating” to arrive at the claimed invention has been fully considered but it is not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As reiterated by the Supreme Court in KSR, the framework for the objective analysis for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 is stated in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966). Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual inquiries. The factual inquiries enunciated by the Court are as follows:
(A) Determining the scope and content of the prior art;
(B) Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and
(C) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
The Examiner was simply stating factual inquiry (B) for the record.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1–9 and 11–20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement as set forth in the previous Office Action is herein revised to reflect the amended claim language due to the Applicant's amendment dated 05/19/2026.
The rejection of claims 1–9 and 11–20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for Examples 1–3 of the instant specification, does not reasonably provide enablement for selecting the first dopant and second dopant set forth in the previous Office Action is herein revised to reflect the amended claim language due to the Applicant's amendment dated 05/19/2026.
The rejections of claims 1–9, 11, and 13–16 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2022/0093878 A1, hereinafter “Kim”) set forth in the Office Action of 02/24/2026 have been revised to reflect the amended claim language due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/19/2026.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1–9 and 11–20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 2021/0257575 A1, hereinafter “Yoon”) in view of Tabata et al. (US 2020/0388781 A1, hereinafter “Tabata”) set forth in the Office Action of 02/24/2026, the rejections of claims 1–8 and 11–20 have been withdrawn since Applicant’s amendment has narrowed the range of the overlap integral rendering them moot. However, the rejections of claim 1 and 9 read on Applicant’s amended range (see pg. 19 – 24 of the previous Office Action). Therefore, those rejections are revised to reflect the amended claim language due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/19/2026.
The rejections of claim 10 as set forth in the previous Office Action is moot because claim 10 is cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 05/19/2026.
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 1–9 and 11–20 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.
Claims 1–9 and 11–20 recite a light-emitting device comprising: a first electrode; a second electrode facing the first electrode; and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer, wherein the emission layer comprises a hole transporting first host, an electron transporting second host, a phosphorescent first dopant, and a delayed fluorescence second dopant, and the first host, the second host, the first dopant, and the second dopant are different from one another. Additionally, the first dopant and second dopant must satisfy two requirements. The first requirement is that the lowest excited triplet energy level of the first dopant must be less than or equal to the lowest excited singlet energy of the second dopant, as described in Expression 1. The second requirement is that the spectral overlap integral of an emission spectrum of the first dopant and an absorption spectrum of the second dopant, as described by Expression 2, is in the range of 0.5 x 1014 M-1 cm-1 nm4 to 5.0 x 1014 M-1 cm-1 nm4.
Per MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(ii), the written description requirement for a claimed genus 12. may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by (A) actual reduction to practice, (B) reduction to drawings, or (C) by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.
The claims require the limitations described above. The specification only provides three examples of first dopant and second dopant which fall within the claimed overlap integral range. The specification provides exceptionally broad guidance on what materials that might be usable to meet the claimed properties as the first host, second host, first dopant, and second dopant and no further description of other means of identifying which species would possess the claimed common structural characteristics or shared trait which would result in the claimed relationship. For example, the first host, second host, and second dopant could be any one of a small molecule, an organometallic compound, or a polymer, which encompasses a vast number of potential compounds and even greater number of combinations. Additionally, the only working examples of the first dopant are tetradentate platinum complexes, which is a small subset of phosphorescent dopants and does not constitute a representative number of species. In claim 12, structural formulae are provided for the first host and the second host. In claims 13 and 14, the first dopant is described to comprise platinum with a tetradentate ligand, which is supported by the specification, however it is still a broad guidance without a structural formula. In claim 15 and 16, the second dopant is described as comprising a first and second ring which are fused together, wherein the first ring is a 6-membered ring comprising boron, and the second ring is a pyrrole group, a furan group, a thiophene group, a benzene group, a pyridine group, a pyrimidine group, or a piperidine group, which is a broad guidance without a structural formula. The limited number of examples described in the written description do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus.
Therefore, claims 1–9 and 11–20 are rejected as lacking adequate written description.
Claims 1–9 and 11–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for Examples 1–3 of the instant specification, does not reasonably provide enablement for selecting the first dopant and second dopant. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to select the first dopant and second dopant of the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Independent Claim 1 requires a first host, a second host, a first dopant, and a second dopant. Additionally, the first dopant and second dopant must satisfy two requirements. The first requirement is that the lowest excited triplet energy level of the first dopant must be less than or equal to the lowest excited singlet energy of the second dopant, as described in Expression 1. The second requirement is that the spectral overlap integral of an emission spectrum of the first dopant and an absorption spectrum of the second dopant, as described by Expression 2, is in the range of 0.5 x 1014 M-1 cm-1 nm4 to 5.0 x 1014 M-1 cm-1 nm4.
Case law holds that applicant' s specification must be “commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]” Ex Parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1990). Otherwise, undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant' s invention. The test for undue experimentation as to whether or not [Claimed Feature] within the scope of the claims can be used [meet the claim requirements] as claimed and whether the claims meet the test is stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed.Cir. 1988). Upon applying this test to claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 11 – 20, it is believed that undue experimentation would be required because:
Nature of the invention:
Independent Claim 1 requires a first host, a second host, a first dopant, and a second dopant. Additionally, the first dopant and second dopant must satisfy two requirements. The first requirement is that the lowest excited triplet energy level of the first dopant must be less than or equal to the lowest excited singlet energy of the second dopant, as described in Expression 1. The second requirement is that the spectral overlap integral of an emission spectrum of the first dopant and an absorption spectrum of the second dopant, as described by Expression 2, is in the range of 0.5 x 1014 M-1 cm-1 nm4 to 5.0 x 1014 M-1 cm-1 nm4.
State of the prior art:
Prior art discusses a first host, a second host, a first phosphorescent dopant, and a second delayed fluorescent dopant, however they rarely include the singlet/triplet energy values of the first and second dopant, and the spectral overlap integral value of the emission spectrum of the first dopant and the absorption spectrum of the second dopant. These pieces of data are needed to evaluate Expression 1 and Expression 2 of claim 1.
The level of one of ordinary skill:
One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to meet the limitations of claim 1 given the singlet/triplet energy values of the first and second dopant, and the spectral overlap integral value of the emission spectrum of the first dopant and the absorption spectrum of the second dopant.
The level of predictability in the art:
The emission spectrum, absorption spectrum, and singlet/triplet energy values of a dopant are defined by the dopant’s structure.
Amount of direction provided:
The specification includes 88 organometallic complexes as the first dopant [0289], but it only provides the singlet/triplet energy values and the emission spectra for 5 complexes. Additionally, the specification includes 17 examples of delayed fluorescence compounds [0335], but it only provides the singlet/triplet energy values and the absorption spectra of the 4 compounds.
The existence of working examples:
The specification provides 7 examples which satisfy claim 1. These examples only use tetradentate platinum complexes as the first dopant.
Notably, three of the tetradentate platinum complexes provided in the examples will be charged as drawn (shown below). This further adds to a lack of guidance provided for the selection of the first dopant. Additionally, motivation or benefits for having the first dopant being charged is not discussed.
PNG
media_image2.png
182
649
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the
content of the disclosure:
In order to evaluate Expression 1 and Expression 2 of claim 1, the singlet/triplet energy values of the first and second dopant, and the spectral overlap integral value of the emission spectrum of the first dopant and the absorption spectrum of the second dopant are needed. A UV-Visible spectrometer could be used to measure the absorption spectra of compounds. A fluorimeter could be used to measure the emission spectra of compounds. The lowest singlet energy can be calculated from the emission peak wavelength. The lowest triplet energy can be calculated from the emission peak wavelength of an emission spectrum taken at 4 K. These experiments would have to be done for any compound in the prior art which could qualify as the first dopant and second dopant to evaluate Expression 1 and Expression 2.
Based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention of claim 1 without undue experimentation.
Claims 2–9 and 11–20 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore, for the reasons outlined above with respect to claim 1, the specification does not enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–9, 11, 13–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2022/0093878, hereafter Kim).
Regarding Claims 1–9, 11, 13–16, Kim teaches the organic light-emitting device of Example 12 including an anode, a cathode, and an emission layer comprising a first host to transport holes (HT2), a second host to transport electrons (ET2), a first phosphorescent dopant (S12), and a second delayed fluorescent dopant (E2), shown below [0350] – [0354] [Table 7].
PNG
media_image3.png
325
245
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
249
319
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
267
243
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
233
320
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 1, Kim teaches the spectral overlap integral of the emission spectrum of compound S12 and the absorption spectrum of compound E2 is 4.89 x 1014 M-1cm-1nm4 [Table 10]. This falls in the range of 0.5 x 1014 M-1 cm-1 nm4 to 5.0 x 1014 M-1 cm-1 nm4., satisfying Expression 2 of claim 1.
However, Kim is silent to the T1 energy of compound S12 and the S1 energy of compound E2.
Compound S12 is identical to compound G of the instant specification. Additionally, compound E2 is identical to compound H of the instant specification [0575]. As a result, they will inherently have identical singlet and triplet energy values.
As evidenced by Table 4 of the instant specification, the T1 energy of compound G (i.e. compound S12) is 2.594755 eV, and the S1 energy of compound H (i.e. compound E2) is 2.654839 eV. Therefore T1(D1) ≤ S1(D2), satisfying Expression 1 of claim 1.
Per Claims 2 and 3, Kim is silent to the emission peak wavelengths of compound S12 and compound E2. However, as discussed above, they are identical to compound G and compound H of the instant specification. Table 2 of the instant specification recites that the emission peak wavelength of compound G (i.e. compound S12) is 470 nm, and the emission peak wavelength of compound H (i.e. compound E2) is 467 nm, meeting the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, the emission peak wavelength of compound S12 is greater than the emission peak wavelength of compound E2, reading on the limitation of claim 3.
Per Claim 4, Kim teaches the triplet energy of the sensitizer (compound S12) is transferred to an emitter (compound E2). By transferring excitons to an emitter, an organic light-emitting device will have an improved efficiency [0036].
Per Claim 5, Kim teaches the proportion of emission components emitted from the emitter (compound E2) may be greater than or equal to about 80% [0063].
Per Claim 6, Kim is silent to the emission peak wavelengths of compound S12 and compound E2. However, as discussed above, they are identical to compound G and compound H of the instant specification. Table 5 of the instant specification recites Comparative Example 6 comprising compound G (i.e. compound S12) and compound H (i.e. compound H) wherein CIEx is 0.135 and CIEy is 0.177. A CIEy of 0.177 reads on Applicants’ limitation as evidenced by the instant specification which recites “about” may mean within ±20%, ±10%, or ±5% [0065]. 0.177 is within ±20% of 0.160.
Per Claims 7 and 8, Kim teaches Example 12 wherein the weight ratio of the first host (compound H2) and second host (compound ET2) are 44.75 each, the weight ratio of the first dopant (compound S12) is 10, and the weight ratio of the second dopant (compound E2) is 0.5 [Table 7]. The sum of the weight ratios of the first and second dopant is 10.5, which is within the range of 0.1 parts by weight to about 30 parts by weight, reading on the limitation of claim 8.
Per Claim 9, Kim is silent to the S1 and T1 energy values of compound S12 and compound E2. However, as discussed above, they are identical to compound G and compound H of the instant specification. According to Table 4 of the instant specification, the T1 energy of compound G (i.e. compound S12) is 2.594755 eV, and the S1 energy of compound H (i.e. compound E2) is 2.654839 eV. Therefore T1(D1) < S1(D2), satisfying Expression 1-1.
Per Claim 11, as recited in the instant specification, the term “electron transport moiety” as used herein may include a cyano group, a phosphine oxide group, a sulfoxide group, a sulfonate group, an π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C1-C60 cyclic group, or any combination thereof [0121]. The hole transporting host (compound H2) does not comprise an electron transporting moiety. The electron transporting compound (compound ET2) comprises two cyano groups.
Per Claims 13 and 14, compound S12 comprises platinum and a tetradentate ligand.
Per Claim 15, compound E2 does not comprise a transition metal.
Per Claim 16, compound E2 comprises a 6-membered ring comprising boron, and a benzene group which are condensed together (shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
233
320
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 1–9 and 11–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 2021/0257575 A1, hereafter Yoon) in view of Tabata et al. (US 2020/0388781 A1, hereafter Tabata).
Regarding Claims 1–9 and 11–20, Yoon teaches a light-emitting device with low driving voltage, excellent external quantum efficiency, and/or improved lifespan characteristics including a first electrode, a second electrode, and an emission layer between the two electrodes, wherein the emission layer includes a host, a first dopant, and a second dopant [0004] – [0010]. This is exemplified in Example 3 wherein the emissive layer comprises a host (mCBP), a first phosphorescent dopant (D1-3), and a second delayed fluorescence dopant (D2-1) [0460] – [0464].
However, Yoon does not teach a device embodiment comprising two host compounds.
Yoon further teaches the host may include a first host and a second host wherein the first host may be a hole transport compound, and the second host may be an electron transport compound [0143]. Tabata teaches that by using plural host compounds, it is possible to adjust transfer of charge, thereby it is possible to achieve high efficiency of an organic EL element [0136].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use two host compounds in the emissive layer, based on the teaching of Yoon. The motivation for doing so would have been to adjust the transfer of charge and thereby increase the efficiency of an OLED, as taught by Tabata.
The first host is mCBP as taught in Example 3, but the second host is not defined.
Yoon teaches a host may include one of Compound H1 to H130 [0181].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose H37 as the second host, because it would have been choosing between H1 to H130, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host in the emission layer of the light-emitting device of Yoon and possessing the benefits taught by Yoon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising H37 having the benefits taught by Yoon in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting emission layer comprises a first host (mCBP), a second host (H37), a first dopant (D1-3), and a second dopant (D2-1), shown below.
PNG
media_image8.png
223
262
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
303
277
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
253
247
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
217
272
media_image11.png
Greyscale
However, the light-emitting device, as described above, does not read on Applicant’s claim 1 since the spectral overlap integral of the first dopant (D1-3) and the second dopant (D2-1) is 1.60 x 1015 M-1cm-1nm4 [Table 3], which is outside the range of 0.5 x 1014 M-1 cm-1 nm4 to 5.0 x 1014 M-1 cm-1 nm4.
For the first dopant, Yoon teaches the first dopant may include an organometallic compound represented by Formula 40 [0184], exemplified by compounds D1-2 [0275] (shown below), wherein R41 and R42 are each represented by an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl).
PNG
media_image12.png
292
321
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
262
247
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Yoon does not teach an exemplified compound like compound D1-2 wherein R41 is a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl), but R42 is a C4 alkyl group (tert-butyl).
However, Yoon does teach compound D1-3 wherein R42 is a C4 alkyl group (tert-butyl) (circled below).
PNG
media_image14.png
271
247
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
262
247
media_image15.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a C4 alkyl group (tert-butyl) as R42 in compound D1-2, because it would have been choosing between phenyl and tert-butyl, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the first dopant in the emission layer of the organic light-emitting device of Yoon and possessing the low driving voltage, excellent external quantum efficiency, and/or improved lifespan benefits [0004] taught by Yoon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by/devices comprising Formula 40 having the benefits taught by Yoon in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified version of compound D1-2 (hereinafter “Modified Compound D1-2”) is shown below.
PNG
media_image16.png
234
252
media_image16.png
Greyscale
For the second dopant, Yoon teaches the second dopant my include a heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 11(4) [0308], exemplified by compound 12-8 [0323] (shown below), wherein Y12 and Y11 are each *–N(R16)–*, while R12, R13, and R16 are each an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl) (shown below).
PNG
media_image17.png
269
244
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
314
270
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Yoon does not teach an exemplified compound like compound 12-8 wherein R12, R13, and R16 are each a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl), with R12 and R13 being substituted with two R10a which are each an unsubstituted C4 alkyl group (tert-butyl), while R16 is substituted with two R10a, which are each an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound 12-8 wherein R12, R13, and R16 are each a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl), with R12 and R13 being substituted with two R10a which are each an unsubstituted C4 alkyl group (tert-butyl), while R16 is substituted with two R10a, which are each an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl), because it would have been choosing between the substituents listed for R12, R13, and R16 [0318] – [0321], which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the second dopant in the emission layer of the organic light-emitting device of Yoon and possessing the low driving voltage, excellent external quantum efficiency, and/or improved lifespan benefits [0004] taught by Yoon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by/devices comprising Formula 11(4) having the benefits taught by Yoon in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified version of Compound 12-8 (hereinafter “Modified Compound 12-8”) is shown below.
PNG
media_image19.png
259
247
media_image19.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Modified Compound D1-2 for compound D1-3 and substituted Modified Compound 12-8 for compound D2-1 in the light-emitting device as described above, because it would have been substituting one known element for another to obtain the predictable results. One would be motivated to make these substitutions to obtain a light-emitting device possessing the low driving voltage, excellent external quantum efficiency, and/or improved lifespan benefits [0004] taught by Yoon. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Per Claims 1, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation of claim 1 since Modified Compound D1-2 is nearly identical to the instant specification’s compound D1-1 and Modified Compound 12-8 is identical to the instant specification’s compound D2-1 [0575] (shown below). Therefore, they are expected to have a spectral overlap that falls within the claimed range, satisfying Expression 2, absent evidence otherwise.
PNG
media_image16.png
234
252
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
223
202
media_image20.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
259
247
media_image19.png
Greyscale
They are also expected to have singlet and triplet energy values which satisfy Expression 1. Table 4 of the instant specification recites that compound D1-1 (nearly identical to Modified compound D1-2) has a T1 energy of 2.695239 eV and compound D2-1 (i.e. Modified compound 12-8) has a S1 energy of 2.712932 eV. Therefore T1(D1) < S1(D2) absent evidence otherwise.
Per Claims 2 and 3, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since Table 2 of the instant specification recites that compound D1-1 (nearly identical to Modified compound D1-2) has an emission peak wavelength of 460 nm and compound D2-1 (i.e. Modified compound 12-8) has an emission peak wavelength of 457 nm. Therefore, Modified Compound D1-2 is expected to have an emission peak wavelength in the claimed range of claim 2, and together with Modified Compound 12-8 would be expected to satisfy the limitations of claim 3, absent evidence otherwise.
Per Claim 4, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since Yoon teaches excitons may transition from the T1 state of the first dopant to the S1 state of the second dopant, and then the excitons may transition to the ground state, thus emitting light from the emission layer [0058].
Per Claim 5, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since Yoon teaches the second dopant may contribute greater than or equal to 80% of the whole emission components emitted from the emission layer [0058].
Per Claim 6, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since Table 5 of the instant specification discloses Example 1 which comprises a first dopant compound D1-1 (nearly identical to Modified compound D1-2) and a second dopant D2-1 (i.e. modified compound 12-8) wherein the CIEx is 0.132 and the CIEy is 0.155. The light-emitting device, as described above, are expected to emit blue light having CIEx and CIEy coordinates within the claimed range, absent evidence otherwise.
Per Claims 7 and 8, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since Yoon teaches the amount of the first dopant to the amount of the second dopant may be 0.1 parts by weight to 30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the emission layer [0061]. In that case, the sum of first host and second host is 69.9 parts by weight.
Per Claim 9, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since Table 4 of the instant specification recites that compound D1-1 (nearly identical to Modified compound D1-2) has a T1 energy of 2.695239 eV and compound D2-1 (i.e. Modified compound 12-8) has a S1 energy of 2.712932 eV. Therefore, the device is expected to satisfy Expression 1-1, absent evidence otherwise.
Per Claim 11, as recited in the instant specification, the term “electron transport moiety” as used herein may include a cyano group, a phosphine oxide group, a sulfoxide group, a sulfonate group, an π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C1-C60 cyclic group, or any combination thereof [0121]. The light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since the hole transporting first host compound (mCBP) does not comprise an electron transporting moiety and the electron transporting second host compound (H37) contains a π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C3 cyclic group (triazine).
Per Claim 12, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since the first host (mCBP) reads on Formula 1, and the second host (H37) reads on Formula 2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image21.png
163
265
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
223
262
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X1 is N[(L1a)m1a-R3],
L1a is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenylene),
m1a is 2,
X2 is a single bond,
ring A1 and ring A2 are each a C6 carbocyclic group (benzene),
R1 and R2 are each hydrogen,
a1 and a2 are each 4,
R3 is an unsubstituted C12 heterocyclic group (carbazole).
PNG
media_image22.png
180
155
media_image22.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
303
277
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X32, X34, and X36 are each N,
X31, X33, and X35 are C(R31), C(R33), and C(R35), respectively,
R31 and R33 are each an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
R35 is a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl) substituted with two R10a groups, wherein each R10a is an unsubstituted C12 heterocyclic group (carbazole).
Per Claims 13 and 14, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since the first dopant (Modified Compound D1-2) is an organometallic compound comprising platinum and a tetradentate ligand (shown below).
PNG
media_image16.png
234
252
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 15, 16 and 17, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since the second dopant (Modified Compound 12-8) does not comprise a transition metal, has a 6-membered ring comprising boron condensed to a benzene group (ring 1 and ring 2, respectively), and a tert-butyl group (circled).
PNG
media_image23.png
348
331
media_image23.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 18, Yoon teaches the light-emitting device, as described above, may be included in an electronic apparatus [0387].
Per Claim 19, Yoon teaches the electronic apparatus may further include a thin-film transistor in addition to the light-emitting device as described above. The thin-film transistor may include a source electrode, a drain electrode, wherein any one of the source electrode or the drain electrode may be electrically connected to any one of the first electrode or the second electrode of the light-emitting device [0394].
Per Claim 20, Yoon teaches the electronic apparatus may further include in addition to the light-emitting device, i) a color filter, ii) a color conversion layer, or III) a color filter and a color conversion layer [0388].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights