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
Claims 29-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/05/2026.
The traversal is on the grounds that: i); Group I (drawn to an organic electroluminescent device) and Group II (drawn to a method for generating light) fall within the permissible combinations of categories set forth in 37 CFR 1.475(b)(2); ii) the need to combine multiple references to arrive at the shared technical feature demonstrates that the features make a contribution over the prior art; and iii) the subject matter of Groups I and II are so closely related that a thorough search and examination of one group would necessarily encompass a search and examination of the other group.
With respect to argument i), while Groups I and II are drawn to a product and process of use of said product, the groups do not relate to a single general inventive concept as they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the reasons presented in Requirement for Unity of Invention dated 04/22/2026. With respect to argument ii), it is not a requirement that the shared technical feature be found in a single prior art reference. Rather, multiple prior art references may be combined to demonstrate the shared technical feature. See MPEP 1850. With respect to argument iii), Groups I and II require a different field of search (e.g., searching different subclasses/subclass or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries) and thus a search and examination of one group would not necessarily encompass a search and examination of the other group.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 16-28 and 31-35 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.
Independent claim 16 requires an organic electroluminescent device comprising one or more excitation energy transfer components, one or more hole scavengers, one or more small FWHM emitters, and optionally one or more host materials that satisfies conditions (1) to (6) when the respective excitation energy transfer components, hole scavengers, small FWHM emitters, and optional host materials are in the same light-emitting layer. Claim 21 further requires when the respective excitation energy transfer components, hole scavengers, small FWHM emitters, and optional host materials are in the same light-emitting layer, conditions (7) to (9) are satisfied. Claim 22 requires the organic electroluminescent device to emit light with a FWHM of a main emission peak of less than a value selected from the group consisting of 0.25 eV, 0.20 eV, 0.15 eV, and 0.13 eV and claim 35 requires the device to emit light with a FWHM of a main emission peak of below 0.15 eV.
Claim 16 does not further define the excitation energy transfer components, hole scavengers, small FWHM emitters, and optional host materials by specific structures or general formulae. Thus, as the excitation energy transfer components, hole scavengers, small FWHM emitters, and optional host materials are so broadly defined, each of these compounds may contain any number of compounds, and the compounds may be small molecules, oligomers, or polymers, and may be purely organic, organometallic, or metallic compounds.
The instant description recites examples of compounds suitable for the host materials (instant ¶ [001002]; pgs. 430-432); the small FWHM emitter may include a structure according to Formula DABNA-1 or Formula BNE-1, and examples of compounds suitable for the small FWHM emitter (instant ¶ [001037], [001047], [001358]-[001359], [001733]-[001734], [002221]); and examples of compounds suitable for the excitation energy transfer component or hole scavenger (instant ¶ [002218]-[002219]).
The instant specification describes 21 examples of emission layers comprising a combination of specific excitation energy transfer components, hole scavengers, small FWHM emitters, and optional host materials which meet conditions (1) to (6) (see Tables on pg. 443, 445, 447, 449, 452-453, 455-456, 459-461, 463-467, 469, 471-482). However, the description provides no examples of devices which emit light with a FWHM of a main emission peak of equal to or less than 0.15 eV or 0.13 eV.
Thus, while the specification provides exceptionally broad guidance on what materials that might be useable for the excitation energy transfer components, hole scavengers, small FWHM emitters, and optional host materials, the instant specification provides no further description of which combination of the excitation energy transfer components, hole scavengers, small FWHM emitters, and optional host materials would meet the claims conditions (1) to (9) or required FWHM.
The limited examples described in the written description do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-1-ii).
Claims 17-28 and 31-35 are rejected for being dependent upon claim 16.
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 16-28 and 31-35 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 “one or more light-emitting layers, each comprising one or more sublayers, wherein the one or more sublayers are adjacent to each other and as a whole comprise” one or more excitation energy transfer components, one or more hole scavengers, one or more small FWHM emitters, and optionally one or more host materials. If more than one light-emitting layer is present, it is unclear if ”the one or more sublayers” is referring to the one or more sublayers of each light-emitting layer (and thus each light-emitting layer is required to comprise one or more excitation energy transfer components, one or more hole scavengers, one or more small FWHM emitters, and optionally one or more host materials), or if “the one or more sublayers” is referring to the sublayers across all the light-emitting layers (and thus each light-emitting layer is not required to comprise all the compounds, but the light-emitting layers as a whole comprise one or more excitation energy transfer components, one or more hole scavengers, one or more small FWHM emitters, and optionally one or more host materials). For purposes of examination, “the one or more sublayers” will be interpreted as referring to the sublayers across all the light-emitting layers.
Claim 16 recites “when the respective excitation energy transfer components, hole scavengers, small FWHM emitters, and optional host materials are in the same light-emitting layer,” conditions (1) to (6) must be satisfied. However, it is unclear if the light-emitting layer must comprise every compound (i.e., a excitation energy transfer component, a hole scavenger, a small FWHM emitter, and an optional host materials) for conditions (1) to (6) to be satisfied, or if the light-emitting layer only needs to include a subset of the compounds for conditions (1) to (6) to be satisfied. For example, it is unclear if a light-emitting layer must satisfy conditions (1) to (6) if the light-emitting layer contains only a hole scavenger and a small FWHM emitter. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the light-emitting layer must comprise every compound (i.e., a excitation energy transfer component, a hole scavenger, a small FWHM emitter, and an optional host materials) for conditions (1) to (6) to be satisfied.
Claim 25 recites at least one hole scavenger is an excitation energy transfer component, and wherein “at least one the excitation energy transfer component” comprises Ir or Pt. However, claim 16 (of which claim 25 is dependent upon) recites one or more excitation energy transfer components and one or more hole scavengers. It is unclear if “at least one the excitation energy transfer component” is referring to the “at least one hole scavenger” of claim 25, if it is referring to the “one or more excitation energy transfer components” of claim 16, or if it is referring to either the “at least one hole scavenger” or the “one or more excitation energy transfer components”. For purposes of examination, “at least one the excitation energy transfer component” will be interpreted as referring to the “at least one hole scavenger” of claim 25
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the light-emitting layer B" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 17-28 and 31-35 are rejected for being dependent upon claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 16-28 and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2020/0373510 A1) in view of Danz (US 2019/0177303 A1) and Hatakeyama (US 2020/0190115 A1), as evidenced by Ossila (Ir(ppy)3, Ossila, 2026.) and Chen (Chen, Chia-Hsun, et al. "Efficient Solid-State triplet-triplet annihilation up-conversion electroluminescence device by incorporating intermolecular intersystem-crossing dark sensitizer." Chemical Engineering Journal 427 (2022): 130889.)
Regarding claims 16-28 and 31-35, Lin teaches an OLED having sharper emission onset and narrower spectral line shape by including an anode, an electron blocking layer, an emissive layer, a hole blocking layer, and a cathode, wherein the emissive layer includes 1 to 50% by weight of a first compound, 1 to 99% by weight of a second compound, and a 0.1 to 10% by weight of a third compound. (¶ [0054]-[0055], [0080]-[0082], and [0111]; Fig. 1).
While Lin fails to teach a device comprising a specific first compound, Lin does teach the first compound may be selected as Ir(ppy)3, among others (¶ [0071]; structure on pg. 10).
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 select Ir(ppy)3 as the first compound, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable first compounds taught by Lin, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the first compound in the emissive layer of the device of Lin and possessing the benefits taught by Lin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising first compounds having the benefits taught by Lin 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 instant specification recites Ir(ppy)3 has a HOMO of -5.36 eV (see Table 1P on instant pg. 438). As evidenced by Ossila, Ir(ppy)3 has a LUMO of -3.0 eV (see pg. 1). As evidenced by Chen, Ir(ppy)3 has a singlet energy of 2.8 eV (see first paragraph of 3.1 Schematic of energy level and energy transfer on pg. 3).
While Lin fails to teach a device comprising a specific second compound, Lin does teach the second compound is capable of functioning as a TADF emitter at room temperature (¶ [0055]). Additionally, Lin teaches the second compound may comprise at least one chemical moiety of
PNG
media_image1.png
99
137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0072]).
Danz teaches TADF molecules comprising a structure of formula I which provide OLEDs with higher efficiencies and stability (¶ [0012]-[0013]). Examples of the TADF molecules include Compound 3, among others (pg. 70).
Compound 3:
PNG
media_image2.png
241
362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 a TADF molecule taught by Danz as the second compound in the device of Lin, based on the teaching of Danz. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with higher efficiency and stability, as taught by Danz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Compound 3 as the second compound, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable TADF molecules taught by Danz, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the second compound in the emissive layer of the device of Lin in view of Danz and possessing the benefits taught by Lin and Danz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the TADF molecules of Danz having the benefits taught by Danz in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
While Lin fails to teach a device comprising a specific third compound, Lin does teach the third compound is a fluorescent emitter (¶ [0054]). Additionally, Lin teaches the third compound may comprise at least one organic group of
PNG
media_image3.png
136
162
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0075]).
Hatakeyama teaches an excellent organic EL device may be obtained by including a polycyclic aromatic compound represented by general formula (1) (abstract; ¶ [0022]). Examples thereof include compound 1-1, as exemplified in the device of Example 1 (structure on pg. 38; Table 1 on pg. 314).
1-1:
PNG
media_image4.png
204
389
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 select a polycyclic aromatic compound represented by Hatakeyama’s general formula (1), and specifically compound 1-1 as shown in the device of Example 1, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an excellent device, as taught by Hatakeyama.
Lin in view of Danz and Hatakeyama appear silent with respect to the HOMO, LUMO, and singlet energy levels of Compound 3 and compound 1-1, and appear silent with respect to the triplet energy of Compound 3.
The instant specification recites that instant compound EB-10 has a HOMO of -5.99 eV, a LUMO of -3.34 eV, a singlet energy level of 2.65 eV, and a triplet energy of 2.65 eV (see Table 1E on instant pgs. 436-437; see structure on instant pg. 434) and instant compound SB-15 has a HOMO of -5.40 eV, a LUMO of -2.66 eV, and a singlet energy level of 2.81 eV (see Table 1S on instant pg. 442; see structure on instant pg. 441). Since Danz teaches Compound 3, the same structure as instant compound EB-10 disclosed by the Applicant, Compound 3 having HOMO of -5.99 eV, a LUMO of -3.34 eV, a singlet energy level of 2.65 eV, and a triplet energy of 2.65 eV is considered to be inherent. Similarly, since Hatakeyama teaches compound 1-1, the same structure as instant compound SB-10 disclosed by the Applicant, compound 1-1 having a HOMO of -5.40 eV, a LUMO of -2.66 eV, and a singlet energy level of 2.81 eV is considered to be inherent, absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Accordingly, Compound 3 reads on the claimed excitation energy transfer component (EET-1), compound 1-1 reads on the claimed small FWHM emitter (SB), and Ir(ppy)3 reads on the claimed hole scavenger (Hscav). The HOMO, LUMO, and S1 levels are shown below and thus conditions (2), (3), (5), and (6) are satisfied. As a host is not present in the emissive layer, conditions (1), (4), and (7) to (9) need not be satisfied (claims 16 and 21).
HOMO (eV)
LUMO (eV)
S1 (eV)
Ir(ppy)3 (Hscav)
-5.36
-3
2.8
Compound 3 (EET-1)
-5.99
-3.34
2.65
Compound 1-1 (SB)
-5.40
-2.66
2.81
Per claim 17, Compound 3 has a LUMO of less than -2.3 eV.
Per claims 18-20 and 32-34, the emissive layer includes 1 to 50% by weight of Ir(ppy)3 (Hscav), 1 to 99% by weight of Compound 3 (EET-1), and a 0.1 to 10% by weight of Compound 1-1 (SB). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Per claims 22, 31, and 35, Lin in view of Danz and Hatakeyama appears silent with respect to the device emitting a FWHM of a main emission peak of less than 0.25 eV and is silent as to compound 1-1 emitting light with a FWHM of less than or equal to 0.25 eV.
The instant specification recites that devices D2 to D4 have FWHM of 0.18-0.24 eV, wherein devices of D2 to D4 use instant compound EB-10 as the excitation energy component, Ir(ppy)3 as the hole scavenger, and SB-1 as the small FWHM emitter (instant ¶ [002226]; Device results I on pg. 444).
Since Lin view of Danz and Hatakeyama teach a device including Compound 3 as an excitation energy component (which is identical to the instant compound EB-10), Ir(ppy)3 as a hole scavenger, and compound 1-1 as a small FWHM emitter (which is substantially similar in structure to the instant SB-1), the device emitting a FWHM of a main emission peak of less than 0.25 eV and compound 1-1 emitting light with a FWHM of less than or equal to 0.25 eV is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap, or do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the pertinent art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05.
Per claim 24, given that Compound 3 has a S1 and T1 of 2.65 eV, Compound 3 has a ΔEST value of 0. Accordingly, condition (i) is satisfied.
Per claim 27, compound 1-1 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula DABNA-I.
1-1:
PNG
media_image4.png
204
389
media_image4.png
Greyscale
DABNA-I:
PNG
media_image5.png
160
143
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Compound 1-1 comprises a structure according to the claimed Formula DABNA-I wherein:
Rings A’ to C’ each represent an aromatic ring comprising 6 ring atoms;
Ring A’ is substituted with a substituent RDABNA-1;
RDABNA-1 is N(RDABNA-2)2;
RDABNA-2 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl;
Ya and Yb are each NRDABNA-3;
RDABNA-3 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl; and
Two structures of Formula DABNA-I are present in compound 1-1 and share ring C’.
Per claim 28, as discussed above, the device of Lin in view of Danz and Hatakeyama sequentially includes an electron blocking layer, an emissive layer, and a hole blocking layer (see Lin, ¶ [0111]).
Lin in view of Danz and Hatakeyama appears silent with respect to a recombination zone of the emissive layer comprises (i) 20-80% of a volume located between the electron blocking layer and an imaginary boundary surface, and (ii) 20-80% of a volume located between the hole blocking layer and the imaginary boundary surface.
The instant specification recites in a device of the instant invention, a recombination zone of the emissive layer comprises (i) 20-80% of a volume located between the electron blocking layer and an imaginary boundary surface, and (ii) 20-80% of a volume located between the hole blocking layer and the imaginary boundary surface (instant ¶ [002065]-[002068]). Examples of devices of the instant invention include devices D2 to D4, which use instant compound EB-10 as the excitation energy component, Ir(ppy)3 as the hole scavenger, and SB-1 as the small FWHM emitter (instant ¶ [002226]).
Since Lin view of Danz and Hatakeyama teach a device including Compound 3 as an excitation energy component (which is identical to the instant compound EB-10), Ir(ppy)3 as a hole scavenger, and compound 1-1 as a small FWHM emitter (which is substantially similar in structure to the instant SB-1), the emissive layer of the device of Lin in view of Danz and Hatekayama is considered to inherently comprise (i) 20-80% of a volume located between the electron blocking layer and an imaginary boundary surface, and (ii) 20-80% of a volume located between the hole blocking layer and the imaginary boundary surface, absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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 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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights