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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawing is objected to under 37 C.F.R. 1.84(u)(1) because the sole illustration is designated as ‘Fig. 1’. In applications containing only one figure, no figure number should appear on the drawing or be used in the specification. The ‘Fig. 1’ designation must be removed from the drawing sheet.
Specification
The specification is objected to because the sole figure is identified as ‘Fig. 1’. Pursuant to MPEP 608.02, where there is only one figure, it should not be numbered and should be referred to as ‘the figure.’ Correction is required. Additionally, the three instances of “Fig. 1” as they appear in paragraphs 0029, 0124, and 0125 of Applicants specification should be replaced with “the figure”.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to. The limitation “emitting fluorescence including thermally activated delayed fluorescence material” should be amended to “emitting fluorescence including thermally activated delayed fluorescence” for better clarity.
Claim 27 is objected to. Specifically, “[Formula 1]” should be removed.
Claim 29 is objected to. Specifically, “[Formula 2]” should be removed.
Claim 30 is objected to. Specifically, “[Formula 3]” should be removed. Claim 30 is further rejected as “the formula (11)” should be amended to “formula (11)” for better clarity.
Claim 31 is objected to. Specifically, “[Formula 4]”, “[Formula 5]”, and “[Formula 6]” should be removed.
Claim 32 is objected to. Specifically, “[Formula 7]” should be removed.
Claim 34 is objected to. Specifically, “[Formula 8]” should be removed.
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.
Claims 20-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Each of independent claims 20 and 36 recite a LUMO energy level for the three host materials, with the first and second host materials specifically having a numerical range and the third host material having a LUMO energy level between the second host material and the first host material. However, there are multiple ways to calculate LUMO energy levels, including experimental methods such as photoelectron spectroscopy, UV-Vis spectroscopy, and electrochemical methods, and computational methods such as density functional theory, and molecular orbital calculations.1 Moreover, the calculated LUMO energy levels of a molecule is highly dependent on the specific DFT methods.2
While Applicants specification teaches in paragraph 0157 that the LUMO and triplet energy values of the first, second, and third host materials can be calculated by quantum calculation, this limitation is not recited in the claim. Without the inclusion of the specific measurement protocol within the claim, the objective boundaries of the property are not defined. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not know which measurement method defines the scope of the claim. To overcome this rejection, Applicants should incorporate the language that the LUMO energies of the first, second, and third host materials are calculated by performing structure optimization calculation at the B3LYP/6-31G* level with the molecular orbital method program Gaussian 03 according to the density functional theory (DFT) as recited in paragraph 0157 of the specification.
Claims 21-35 and 37 are included in the above rejection as they are dependent on either claim 20 or 36.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The reason for this rejection is the same as in the rejection above since triplet energy levels of compounds can vary depending on the experimental methods or computational means employed. Applicants can overcome this rejection by amending “2.55 eV or more” as found to “2.55 eV or more as calculated using the program Gaussian 03 according to density functional theory (DFT) at the B3LYP/6-31G* level”.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 23 recites the limitation “one or more light-emitting layers”. The claim further recites that at least three materials contained in the light-emitting layers are vapor deposited from one vapor deposition source. However, this claim is indefinite since the limitation “at least three materials” raises a question as to what these three materials refer to. While it can be said that at least three materials could mean that at least three materials selected from the first host, material, the second host material, the third host material, and the light-emitting dopant are vapor deposited from a single deposition source, the claim as written is ambiguous since this could also mean that at least three materials different from the ones cited above are vapor deposited from a single deposition source. Applicants may overcome this rejection by clarifying what specifically is meant by the at least three materials. Claim 24 is included in this rejection as it is dependent on claim 23.
Comment on Patentability
While all claims stand rejected, there are no outstanding prior art rejections against the instantly filed claims. Should Applicants overcome all of the issues raised above, the claims would be in condition for allowance for the reasons described below.
Relevant Art Cited
Additional prior art documents which are relevant to Applicants invention can be found on the attached PTO-892 form. Sun et al. (US 2021/0376252), which has a foreign application priority date of 5/19/20, teaches and exemplifies OLEDs having three host materials and a dopant material. Table 1 of Sun et al. teaches the LUMO levels of the various host materials employed in the device examples. However, none of the materials are taught as having a LUMO energy level of -1.54 eV or greater as required by claim 1. The shallowest LUMO levels employed in the host materials in the device examples of Sun et al. is -1.88 eV which is 0.34 eV less than the -1.54 eV lower limit recited in claim 1. It cannot be stated with any degree of certainty whether or not any of the various combinations of each of the exemplified first host compounds, second host compounds, and third host compounds would satisfy the relationship LM2 ≥ LM3 ≥ LM1 as required by independent claims 20 and 36. The LUMO energy level of the third host must fall within the -1.95 and -1.54 eV window (which is 0.41 eV wide) as required by relationship above. Adamovich et al. (US 2014/0374728, cited on Applicants information disclosure statement, filed on 12/22/22) suffers from the same deficiency as Sun et al. above. Many of the references cited on the attached PTO-892 form teach organic electroluminescent devices which comprise an anode, a cathode, and an emission layer between the anode and cathode, wherein the emission layer comprises a first host, a second host, a third host, and a light-emitting dopant. However, no single prior art reference teaches or fairly suggests the LUMO energy level requirements of independent claims 20 and 36.
Additionally, a search was conducted against each of Applicants claimed structures as recited in claims 27, 31, and 32. Specifically, first host of general formula (1) as recited in claim 27, the second host of general formulae (2) through (4) as recited in claim 31, and the third host of general formula (5) as recited in claim 32 were searched in the prior art. The conclusion which could be made by a person having ordinary skill in the art is that if a prior art reference discloses a first host which satisfies formula (1) of claim 27, a second host which satisfies one of formulae (2)-(4) of claim 31, and a third host which satisfies formula (5) of claim 32, then said prior art reference could be relied upon to reject the independent claims since a chemical compound and its properties are inseparable. However, the prior art does not teach or suggest such a ternary host mixture. While there are some prior art references which disclose an emission layer comprising two host materials, where each of the two host materials satisfy the structural limitations of two of the instantly claimed host materials, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to add a third host to the host compositions disclosed therein.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
1 As evidenced by a teaching from Ossila “Understanding HOMO and LUMO”.
2 As evidenced by Zhang et al. (J. Phys. Chem. A, 2007, 111, 1554-1561, see Tables 1-4).