DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 and 18-34 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 claims contain’s 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 emitter with a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of less than or equal to 0.25 eV that also has a lower singlet energy than the triplet energy of a phosphorescent dopant that is also lower than the triplet energy of a host material and also has a TADF material that has a lower triplet energy than the host and a higher triplet energy than the emitter. The instant description includes a description of a few materials that meet these requirements. The description only provides a few examples of such a combination that meets this requirement. The specification further provides exceptionally broad guidance on what materials that might be useable for each of these materials but provides no further description of which structural features result in the claimed range of FWHM and singlet and triplet energies. As amended, the claims now limit the structure to any material containing a boron atom or a polycyclic aromatic or heteroaromatic structure, a category that still includes an infinite number of structures. 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-3-a-ii).
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation below.
PNG
media_image1.png
80
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There is no support for this limitation in the specification as filed. Applicant points to paragraph [0408] as support. However, this paragraph does not describe 50% of light emitted being a result of receiving energy from the at least one phosphorescence material but instead states that it is preference that the emitter emits 50% or more of the light.
Claim 22 is 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.
Claim 22 requires the selection of the emitter described above with a FWHM that further has a shielding parameter A equal to or smaller than 5.0 Å2. The instant description includes a description of how this shielding parameter is calculated and a few compounds that meet this requirement. The description only provides 1 or 2 compounds that are demonstrated to meet both this and the FWHM requirement as examples of such a combination that meets this requirement. The specification further provides exceptionally broad guidance on what materials that might be useable for emitters but provides no further description of which compounds meet the claim language. As amended, the claims now limit the structure to any material containing a boron atom or a polycyclic aromatic or heteroaromatic structure, a category that still includes an infinite number of structures. The 1 or 2 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-3-a-ii).
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 and 18-34 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 requires a specific range in eV of FWHM ‘as determined from the main emission peak of an emission spectrum of the at least one emitter”. The FWHM is different depending on the specific methods used to measure them (e.g. photoluminescence, fluorescence of phosphorescence spectroscopy, in a solvent and if so which, in a thin film and if so in pure form or with a matrix, in a EL device and if so what other materials are present or absent). Consequently, it is indefinite which materials will meet the requirements as they might be found to be outside of the scope under one condition but inside the scope in another. Further “the main emission peak” appears to be lack antecedent basis in the claims and “a main emission peak” is also indefinite as it is not clear what is meant as a “main” peak. For the purpose of the application of prior art, the claims will be interpreted to broadly allow for any measurement possible.
Claim 18 requires a specific range of PLQY determined by a ratio of emitted photon count to absorped photon count. The PLQY is different depending on the specific methods used to measure it (e.g. fluorescence of phosphorescence spectroscopy, in a solvent and if so which, in a thin film and if so in pure form or with a matrix). Consequently, it is indefinite which materials will meet the requirements as they might be found to be outside of the scope under one condition but inside the scope in another. For the purpose of the application of prior art, the claims will be interpreted to broadly allow for any measurement method possible.
Claim 20 requires a specific range of LUMO. The LUMO is different depending on the specific methods used to measure it. Consequently, it is indefinite which materials will meet the requirements as they might be found to be outside of the scope under one condition but inside the scope in another. For the purpose of the application of prior art, the claims will be interpreted to broadly allow for any measurement method possible.
Claims 18-34 are rejected for depending from an indefinite claim.
Claims 16, 18-21, 23-32, 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al (US 2020/0136059) (Hong).
In reference to claims 16-21, 23-28, and 31-34, Hong teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer as described in Fig 7 below comprising three sub-layers each comprising a host and a dopant.
PNG
media_image2.png
612
908
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For example, wherein the host 1, 2 and/or 3 is e.g. FH-1, the dopant FD1 is selected as PD-2 (identical to PB-2 of the instant specification (Table 1P), the dopant TD is a TADF emitter TD-3 and the dopant FD2 is a dopant FD-2 as shown below.
Given that Hong discloses the emitting layer that encompasses the presently claimed emitting layer, including wherein the host 1, 2, and/or 3 is e.g. FH-1, the dopant FD1 is selected as PD-2, the dopant TD is a TADF emitter TD-3 and the dopant FD2 is a dopant FD-2, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the emitting layer configuration, which is both disclosed by Hong and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image3.png
264
348
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
140
332
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
320
362
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
324
344
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Both Hong and the instant specification provide various disparate values for the singlet, triplet, HOMO and LUMO energies of these materials (see Hong Table 1 and Tables 1 of the instant specification).
While Hong does not detail the FWHM of the compound FD-2, this property is inherent to the material and BODIPY materials are known for sharp emission peaks. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
For Claim 16: Reads on the claimed layer wherein FH-1 is the host material, PD-2 is the phosphorescent material and FD-2 is the emitter with a FWHM of 0.25 eV or less, TD-3 is the TADF material wherein 2.8 > 2.57 eV and 2.57 eV > 2.5 eV.
For Claim 17: Reads on wherein 2.8 > 2.77 eV and 2.81 > 2.57 eV.
For Claim 18: Reads on 0.04 eV and 63% PLQY.
For Claim 19: Reads on a difference of 0.07 eV.
For Claim 20: Reads on wherein the LUMO is -3.15 eV.
For Claim 21: Reads on a carbazole derivative moiety, triazine and CN moieties.
For Claim 23: Reads on a compound of formula B-1 wherein the metal is Ir, n is 3 and the ligands are linked by a bond.
For Claim 24: Reads on Ir.
For Claim 25: Reads on wherein the host is a p host with a HOMO of –5.6 eV.
For Claim 26: Reads on formula HP-X and HP-XI.
For Claim 27: Reads on condition i.
For Claim 31: Reads on wherein the host is a p host with a HOMO of –5.6 eV.
For Claim 32: Reads on wherein the host is a p host with a HOMO of –5.6 eV.
For Claim 34: Reads on an aza-derivative.
In reference to Claims 29-30, Hong teaches the device as described above for claim 16 and further teaches it is a light emitting device that is used to emit light when an electrical current is applied and FD-2 likely emits light in the 510 nm to 550 nm range. It would have been obvious to use an organic light emitting device to emit light.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Concerning the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 112(a) for failing to meet the written description requirement, Applicant argues that as amended the disclosure provides structural guidance for the amended emitter limitation and support the claimed energy-transfer architecture. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing. The amendments about the structural features are exceptionally broad requiring only a single atom (boron) or a polycyclic aromatic group both of which are so broad to include an infinite number of materials and not to define a significant structural feature of even the materials exemplified. Further concerning the configuration to emit more than 50% of light as a result of receiving energy from the at least one phosphorescence material, this limitation appears to be unsupported in the description as well.
Concerning the rejection of claim 22, Applicant argues that the specification explains the methodology for determining the shielding parameter and discloses embodiments in which the parameter is equal to or smaller than 5.0. This argument is not convincing. The rejection is due to the lack of examples that demonstrate that Applicant was in possession of the scope of the claim. 1 or 2 examples out of an infinite number of structures is not considered representative to demonstrate possession of the scope of the claimed subject matter.
Concerning the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims further define the claimed subject matter. However, this is still insufficient. For example, the determination of the FWHM from an emission peak of an emission spectrum of an emitter still does not define the conditions used sufficiently. For example, the FWHM will vary depending on the type of emission (e.g. phosphorescence, electroluminescence etc.) and the specific conditions thereof (excitation wavelength, matrix effects, temperature, etc.). A similar issue exists for PLQY. It is suggested that Applicant claims the material itself and not its desired properties.
Concerning the rejections under 35 USC 103 over Hong et al, Applicant argues that the dopant of FD-2 is not demonstrated to have the claimed FWHM and should not be construed as inherently having this value. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing. Applicant has, in this same response, argued that the structural features of a boron atom or a polyclic aromatic group are sufficient structural features to define the emitter material such that a few examples of those broad features are representative of the claimed emitter genus. FD-2 comprises both a boron atom and a polycyclic aromatic group. By Applicant’s own logic, this material meets the specific structural requirements that define the claimed feature. Applicant has not presented data that this material does not have the claimed FWHM feature.
Applicant also argues that Hong teaches transfer from a TADF material to a fluorescent or phosphorescent material whereas the instant claim requires at least 50% of emission to come from the emitter having transferred energy from the phosphorescent material. Again, as pointed to above herein, this limitation appears unsupported by the written description. Further, Applicant has not presented any evidence that the phosphorescent dopant of Hong does not also transfer energy to the fluorescent emitter (e.g. FD-2) either directly or through an intermediary material (e.g. a TADF compound).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
