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
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 16-29 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.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 requires an emitter with a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of less than or equal to 0.25 eV. The instant description includes a description of a few materials that meet these requirements. The description only provides a few example 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 . 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).
Claims 17-29 are rejected due to the dependence of the claims on 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 16-29 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.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 requires a specific range in eV of FWHM. 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. For the purpose of the application of prior art, the claims will be interpreted to broadly allow for any measurement possible.
Claim 16 requires a specific range of PLQY. The PLQY 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.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, claims 22 and 23 require specific relationships between triplet and singlet energies of materials but does not specific the method of measurement for these materials. The measured singlet and triplet energies are different depending on the specific methods used to measure or calculate them. 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 or calculation possible.
Claims 17-29 are rejected due to the dependence of the claims on claim 16.
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.
Claim(s) 16-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 2020/0136059) (hereafter “Hong”).
Regarding claims 16-27, 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_image1.png
612
908
media_image1.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_image2.png
264
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
140
332
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
320
362
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
324
344
media_image5.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).
Regarding claims 6, 18 and 19, Hong teaches 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 with a excited state lifetime equal to or shorter than 10 microseconds.
Regarding claim 22, the formulas (1) and (2) are meet respectively, 2.8 > 2.57 eV and 2.57 eV > 2.5 eV.
Regarding claim 23, the formulas (3) and (4) are meet respectively, 2.8 > 2.77 eV and 2.81 > 2.57 eV.
Regarding claim 24, Hong discloses, 0.04 eV and 63% PLQY.
Regarding claims 29 and 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (US 2017/0271611) an electroluminescent device comprising a light emitting layer composed of a host, FWHM compound that is a fluorescent emitting, and a phosphorescent dopant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights