DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The office acknowledges the receipt of applicants’ response to the restriction requirement dated 01/20/2026.
Elected Species
PNG
media_image1.png
338
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A search of the prior art did not show the elected species. Under MPEP 803.02, the search was expanded to find an examinable species, but no examinable species were found.
The restriction requirement is therefore withdrawn.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for:
A first emitting part containing
a carbazole derivative Formula 6-1 as a fluorescent host (specification paragraph 111)
PNG
media_image2.png
227
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a cyano-phenyl derivative Formula 7-1 as an auxiliary fluorescent dopant (specification paragraph 125)
.
PNG
media_image3.png
318
361
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a fluorescent emitter Formula 9-1 (specification paragraph 137)
PNG
media_image4.png
264
506
media_image4.png
Greyscale
A second emitting part containing
a carbazole host Formula 15 (specification paragraph 193)
.
PNG
media_image5.png
187
244
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a red phosphorescent dopant Formula 16 (specification paragraph 194)
PNG
media_image6.png
198
515
media_image6.png
Greyscale
These limited examples and structural features does not reasonably provide enablement for the full scope of claim 1 and the corresponding dependent claims.
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Claim 1 while defining the OLED layers fails to provide any structural definition as to the type of materials or number of materials required by each layer that is so fully embraced by the specification which results in the claimed electronic relationship among the layers.
Per MPEP 2164, the claimed invention must be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation. The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation Ltd. V. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: Is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable?
Upon applying this test to claim 1 and the dependent claims, it is believed that undue experimentation would be required based on the evidence regarding each of the following factors:
(B) The nature of the invention: Independent claim 1 contains is a fluorescent emitting layer in the first emitting part and a phosphorescent emitting layer in the second emitting part which are related to each other by a full width at a half maximum of the second emitting material layer is smaller than that of the first emitting material layer, and an emitting efficiency of the second emitting material layer is greater than that of the first emitting material layer. As there is no specific compounds or organic material classes provided in claim 1 the level of experimentation to achieve by a full width at a half maximum of the second emitting material layer is smaller than that of the first emitting material layer, and an emitting efficiency of the second emitting material layer is greater than that of the first emitting material layer would be massive.
(C) The state of the prior art and (E) The level of predictability in the art:
Determining the Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) requires identifying the peak value, determining the half-maximum value, identifying the two points on the curve corresponding to this value, and calculating the difference between them. This process would be required for a limitless number of materials as claim 1 provides no structural limitation (Methods for estimating full width at half maximum: Signal, Image and Video Processing (2025) 19:289)
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill: One having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably determine the material parameters to select compounds meeting the electronic limitations with scope, type or class of material provided without limitless testing.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: The specification provides no description of how to make or to use compounds commensurate in scope with the claims.
(G) The existence of working examples: The specification does not provide any compounds or examples other than the material’s shown above as working examples which a far less than the scope of claim 1.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure:
One having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably predict how the full scope of what types of compounds or number of compounds in each of the first emitting part and the second emitting part in combination with each other would be able to achieve the claimed half-maximum value without a large amount of undue experimentation without exhaustive experimentation.
Based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention of claim 1 and the dependents without undue experimentation.
Claims 1-20 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.
The office sets forth the burden on the examiner with regard to the lack of meeting the written description requirement as follows per MPEP 2163.04:
Claim 1 recites a stacked OLED comprising a first emitting part (fluorescent) and a second emitting part (phosphorescent) without any recitation as to the number or type(s) of material(s) present in the perspective layers. Said layers are also related to each other by specific electronic properties: wherein a full width at a half maximum of the second emitting material layer is smaller than that of the first emitting material layer, and an emitting efficiency of the second emitting material layer is greater than that of the first emitting material layer.
After a thorough evaluation of the claims and the specification, the content of the specification was found to be limited to a few example classes such a carbazole derivatives, cyanophenyl(s) , Formula 9-1 derivatives and iridium complexes. Applicant has not shown possession by describing an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Claim 1 far exceeds the level of written description in the specification as the claims only describes the function of said layers (fluorescent emitting layer and phosphorescent emitting layer) with no limitations as to the number or type of compound is present to in the layers to achieve a full width at a half maximum of the second emitting material layer is smaller than that of the first emitting material layer, and an emitting efficiency of the second emitting material layer is greater than that of the first emitting material layer. Making the determination as to the composition of the material(s) in fluorescent emitting layer and phosphorescent emitting layer based on the above reasons to meet a specific electronic relationship among said layers is a serious burden to a skilled artisan. Applicant has provided no disclosure of relevant identifying characteristic of the materials used in the layers non relevant chemical properties beyond fluorescent and phosphorescent for said materials. Applicant has provided no written description for combination of identifying characteristics to show applicant was in full possession of the material(s) depth to meet the full range of the complete expression of the invention as recited in claim 1.
This demonstrates a clear lack of written description based on the above reasons and the limited examples of materials described in the specification sufficient to show that applicant was in full possession of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY D CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7087. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM M-F.
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 Chriss can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY D CLARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights