DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on 07/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 28-30 and 33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/02/2026.
The election of species requirement set forth on 05/06/2026 is withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the figures are not labeled correctly. According to 37 C.F.R. 1.84(u) “View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation “FIG.”". Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 16-27 and 31-32 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “an exciton management layer adjacent to the light-emitting layer and comprising a triplet-triplet-annihilation (TTA) material”. However, the instant description does not specifically define a TTA material. While paragraphs 64 to 67 of the specification set forth some general description of what these materials might be or properties they might have but does not define it in such a way so as to limit the scope of the material in this layer. For the purpose of the application of prior art, the limitation will be interpreted to require any material that, either alone or in combination with another material, might be capable of enabling triplet-triplet annihilation.
Claims 16 and 21 recite the limitation “to emit light with a peak emission wavelength between 440 nm and 480 nm and with a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of less than or equal to 0.25 eV”. This limitation is indefinite because the claim fails to set forth specific requirements for the measurement of the FWHM. For example, the emission spectrum of a material is different depending on whether or not the spectrum is obtained in a device, with or without a matrix, from electroluminescence or from a spectrometer, neat or in solution, depending on excitation wavelength and temperature etc. The instant claims and specification do not define this value to be obtained under a specific condition and therefore the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of the application of prior art, the limitation will be interpreted to require any material that has such a FWHM under any condition.
Claims 25 recites the limitation “a photoluminescence quantum yield of more than 30%”. This limitation is indefinite because the claim fails to set forth specific requirements for the measurement of the PLQY. For the purpose of the application of prior art, the limitation will be interpreted to require any material that has such a PLQY under any condition.
Each of claims 17-27 and 31-32 depend from claim 16 and are rejected for the same reason(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 31 recites that the TADF material, host and emitter material each have a singlet and triplet energy. However, all of these materials would necessarily have singlet and triplet energies and therefore the claim does not further limit claim 15 from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 16-18, 22-24, 26-27, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kakizoe (US 2023/0209847) as evidenced by Stankevych et al (Phys. Rev. Applied 20, 064029) (Stankevych).
In reference to claim 16-18, 22, 24, 26-27, and 31-32, Kakizoe teaches an organic EL device of example 1 (Kakizoe [0183]) with a host compound H3, TADF compounds T10 and S3 and emitter E1 with the following structure:
ITO(100nm)/HATCN(10nm)/NPD(30nm)/H3(3nm)/H3:T10:S3:E1(30nm)/SF3TRZ(10nm)/SF3TRZ:Liq(30nm)/Liq(10nm)/Al(100nm).
PNG
media_image1.png
184
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
382
876
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
380
406
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
234
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
210
520
media_image5.png
Greyscale
While Kakizoe does not expressly state that the emitter E1 has a peak emission wavelength between 440 nm and 480 nm and with a FWHM of less than or equal to 0.25 eV, this is an inherent property of the material. Applicant’s own specification demonstrate that this material has this property (Table 1S). 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.
While Kakizoe does not call the layer comprising the host H3 alone as an “exciton management layer”, the name of the layer does not convey any structural or compositional limitations on the layer.
Further, while Kakizoe does not call the host material H3 a “triplet-triplet-annihlation (TTA) material”, this name does not place any specific structural requirements on the composition. Further, the material H3 is highly likely able to, even with poor efficiency, demonstrate some triplet triplet annihilation activity.
Indeed, carbazole compounds are known to demonstrate TTA activity. As evidence, Stankevych reports TTA activity for a bipolar biscarbazole compound (mCBP-CN) in which two carbazoyl moieties (donor groups) are linked by a cyano biphenyl (acceptor group) that is structurally analogous to a biscarbazole (donor groups) linked by a pyridine (acceptor group). Further, Stakevych specifically points that this TTA activity is not exclusive to mCBP-CN but that it may be applicable to other organic semiconductors that possess efficient ISC and a sufficiently high triplet energy level (E.g. carbazole- or triazine-based compounds). Given that H3 has a higher triplet energy level than mCBP-CN and a smaller ΔEST (typically corresponding to efficient ISC), it would be expected to have some activity for TTA.
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 16: Reads on a device wherein the layer comprising H3 is an exciton management layer and H3 is a TTA material and an emitting layer comprising S1 or T10 which are TADF materials, E1 is an emitter with the claimed properties and H3 is a host.
For Claim 17-18: Reads on 3 nm thick.
For Claim 22: Reads on an additional TADF material such as S3.
For Claim 24: Reads on condition i.
For Claim 26: Reads on the claimed properties.
For Claim 27: Reads on the claimed structure.
For Claim 31: Reads on the claimed devices.
For Claim 32: Reads on condition i of claim 24
In reference to claim 23, Kakizoe teaches the device as described above for 16. While Kakizoe does not state that S1 or T10 are “phosphorescence materials”, Kakizoe does make clear that these materials are capable of emitting light through a phosphorescence mechanism. Specifically, Kakizoe reports Triplet energies of these compounds and describes that those values are measured from the phosphorescence spectrum of the materials. Therefore the materials S1 and T10 each meet the requirement of a phosphorescence material.
Claim 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kakizoe (US 2023/0209847) as evidenced by Stankevych et al (Phys. Rev. Applied 20, 064029) (Stankevych) and Beer et al (arXiv:2604.08483 [physics.app-ph]) (Beer).
In reference to claim 25, Kakizoe teaches the device as described above for 16. Kakizoe does not list the PLQY for the TADF materials S3. However, the PLQY is an inherent property of the material.
As evidence that the material has the property, Beer details the PLQY of the same material (therein named 4CzIPN) to be 77.0% (Beer Table S1). Therefore, the device of Kazikoe meets the claimed limitation.
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 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakizoe (US 2023/0209847) as evidenced by Stankevych et al (Phys. Rev. Applied 20, 064029) (Stankevych) as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Volz et al (US 9917270) (Volz).
In reference to claims 19-21, Kakizoe teaches the device as described above for claim 16. Kakizoe does not expressly teach the inclusion of an exciton management layer comprising an anthracene derivative of formula 4 or comprising an additional emitter as instantly claimed.
With respect to the difference, Volz teaches, in analgous art, similar devices comprising an exciton quenching layer comrpsing at least one (e.g. two) emitters EC for example those selected from triplet triplet annihilation compounds such as the compound shown below (Volz col 71) and TADF emitters such as those shown below (Volz Col 89). Volz further teaches that the inclusion of this exciton quenching layer reduces undesired emission of the electron transport material, narrows emission spectrum and increases quantum yield in the visible range of the spectrum and improves stability and lifetime (Volz col 3, para 4).
PNG
media_image6.png
204
276
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
286
288
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using the exciton quenching layer 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 exciton quenching layer as described by Volz in order to reduce undesired emission of the electron transport material, narrow emission spectrum and increase quantum yield in the visible range of the spectrum and improve stability and lifetime and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. While Kakizoe does not expressly state that the emitter E1 has a peak emission wavelength between 440 nm and 480 nm and with a FWHM of less than or equal to 0.25 eV, this is an inherent property of the material. 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights