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.
Claim 1-15 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 claims require specific energetic relationships between the phosphorescent PB, the small FWHM emitter SB, and the TADF material EB of the light emitting layer in the electroluminescent device. No structure of any of these compounds is required in the claims. The examples of the instant specification teach four phosphorescent emitters for PB of the common iridium complex type, 15 examples of SB compound (similar BODIPY derivatives, known to the skilled artisan according to Applicant), and 24 examples of TADF materials EB, mostly having a triazine core. No structure of any of these three compounds, nor the host compounds (16 examples in the specification), is required by the claims. Examiner notes that the phosphorescent compounds, SB compounds, and EB compounds of the examples are of basically the same structure, yet Applicant has made claim to any phosphorescent, any small FWHM, and any TADF emitter compounds of any structure as long as it meets the claimed energy relationships.
The specification does not teach or suggest to a person of ordinary skill what particular features of the compounds shown give the compounds the claimed emission maximum energy levels Eλmax, nor does the specification provide direction as to how to form other combinations of compounds outside of those particularly taught, that would meet the claimed emission maximum energy levels Eλmax.
The limited examples described in the written description does not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii).
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.
Claim 12 is 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 12 requires an organic electroluminescent device with one layer, but a device must have at least an anode and a cathode in addition to the light emitting layer. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that Claim 12 requires that the light emitting layer B is composed of one layer.
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.
Claim 10 is 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. Base claim 1 requires the TADF emitter EB, but it is optional in claim 10. 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hong et al (US 20200136059 A1).
Hong discloses ([0078],[0088],[0106],[0134],[0138],[0139],[0142],[0143],[0145]-[0146],[0165]-[0175],[0183]-[0190], Table 1, Fig. 7,8) an organic electroluminescent device comprising at least one light emitting layer (EML1, EML2, EML3) which is composed of more sublayers (EML1, EML2, EML3), wherein the one or more sublayers are adjacent to each other and as a whole contain:
at least one host material (First, third, and fifth compound),
at least one phosphorescence material (sixth compound), (which has implicitly an emission max which corresponds to the material bandgap); and
at least one small full witch at half maximum (FWHM) emitter (second compound), (BODIPY [0185], and derivatives page 27, FD-1 to DF-5), (which has implicitly an emission maximum which corresponds to the material bandgap), wherein the BODIPY emits light with a FWHM of less than or equal to 0.25 eV (see Applicant’s specification which states the skilled artisan would understand BODIPY to be a small FHWM emitter)
at least one thermally delayed fluorescence (TADF) material (fourth compound), (which has implicitly an emission maximum which corresponds to the material bandgap);
wherein the one or more sublayers which are located at the outer surface of the light emitting layer (EML2,EML3) contain at least one emitter material selected from the group consisting of phosphorescent material, small FWHM emitter, wherein Table 1 (page 36) discloses that the band gap difference (ΔHOMO-LUMO) between phosphorescent compounds (PD-1 to PD-4) and the FWHM emitter (FD-1 to FD-5) <0.2 eV, and that the band gap difference (ΔHOMO-LUMO) between TADF compound (TD-1 to TD-5) <0.2 eV, because, for instance, the difference between HOMO of the PD-2 and TD-1 is 0 eV. Since the Band gap and therefore the emission maximum of a luminescent compound is directly related to the position of the HOMO and LUMO levels, the subject matter of claim 1 is disclosed by Hong.
Hong discloses applying a current to the electroluminescent device in order to emit light [0231].
Hong discloses (Table 1 and Fig. 7,8) the additional features of claims 2-4 and 7-11 concerning the relating between the emission maxima of the different compounds in the emissive layer and the positions of the HOMO and LUMO levels of the compounds. The different (sub)layers of the emissive layer are disclosed in Fig. 7 and 8. Regarding claim 7, the additional features concerning the ΔEst of 0.4eV and the PLQY>30% of the TADF compound are disclosed in Hong ([0075],[0088],[0142]).
The composition in terms of mass concentration of the different compounds in the luminescent sublayers is disclosed [0187]-0189],[0145]-[0146] in accordance with claim 10.
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.
Claim(s) 6,12,13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al (US 20200136059 A1).
Hong, discussed above, discloses the compositional components of the claims in an electroluminescent device. The spectral ranges of claims 6 and 15 are the normal emission ranges of OLED colors (in claim 15: blue, green, and red light), and the shielding parameter of <5 angstroms are also a normal design feature. Furthermore, Hong uses the same BODIPY compounds as Applicant’s specification for the claimed SB emitter [0139], and so will have the same or similar emission wavelengths and shielding parameter.
The Office realizes that all the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed reagents, claimed amounts, and substantially similar processes. The BODIPY SB emitters [p27], the iridium complex phosphorescent PB emitters [p27], and triazine core with carbazole group TADF EB emitters [p28]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the emission ranges and shielding parameters, would be expected in a composition with all the claimed ingredients. If it is the applicants' position that this wouldn’t be the case: (1) evidence would need to be presented to support applicants' position; and (2) it would be the Offices' position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties and effects with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar processes. See In re Spada, MPEP §2112.01, I and II.
One-layer electroluminescent devises are commonly known in the art, and would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the effective filing date to use a single light emitting layer over the separate sublayers disclosed in Hong. The rearrangement of parts of an invention is considered an generally considered an obvious variant if the parts are expected to perform the same function, in the absence of secondary considerations, see MPEP 2144-VI-C; In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al (US 20200136059 A1) in view of Kim et al (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 26−30).
If Applicant disagrees that Hong discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity, this rejection is applied concurrently.
Hong does not explicitly disclose the claimed relations of energy of emission maxima in claim 1.
Kim discloses sensitization of fluorescent emitters for OLEDs using a phosphorescent iridium complex emitter [abstract], similar to Hong. Kim teaches that if the emission energy between the phosphorescent and fluorescent emissions was kept close, as close as 0.05 eV, i.e. an emission wavelength different of 10 nm, than the OLEDs will achieve high efficiencies and long operational lifetimes [abstract, p29 right column 2nd paragraph].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have used sensitizers with close emission maximum energies close to the small FWHM emitter of Hong because Kim teaches the close emission maximum energies, within the claimed ranges, provide OLEDs with high efficiencies and long operational lifetimes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights