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 .
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 3-9 and 16 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.
Applicant recites
The composition of claim 1 as presented in claims 3-7, wherein:
a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the first compound is -5.6 eV or more.
a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) energy level of the second compound is -2.6 eV or less.
a triplet (T1) energy level of each of the first compound and the second compound is 2.8 eV or more.
a difference between a phase transition temperature of the first compound and a phase transition temperature of the second compound is 15 °C or less.
a phase transition temperature of the first compound is about 285 °C to about 305 °C.
a phase transition temperature of the second compound is about 285 °C to about 305 °C.
Independent claim 1 limits the scope to the description in the specification; the specification fails to define how specific permutations of the first compound and the second compound are selected to meet the above electronic and phase transition temperature requirements. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the first compound and second compound with the description provided in the specification to meet the above electronic and phase transition temperature requirements. While there are examples in the Specification, this does not support the full scope of the claim required to meet the above electronic and phase transition temperature requirements. By having a claim written as such, Applicant is attempting to have a scope for a combination of the first compound and the second compound that would extend beyond the material requirements supported in the Specification to specifically meet the above electronic and phase transition temperature requirements. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art quipped with the written description in the specification would not find the criteria necessary to select the variants of the first compound and the second compound from the vast scope of these generic materials to arrive specific materials meeting the above electronic and phase transition temperature requirements.
The office finds the written description is lacking in that the criteria (even with the two generic compounds) needed to consider all compounds within the broad scope of possibilities to include all compounds meeting the 7 specific electronic parameters will not allow for a reasonable substructure query for a combination of Formula 1 and 2. In the case of Formula 2 this would include all pyridine and pyrimidine derivatives meeting said electronic parameters. Therefore, claims 3-8 are rejected also for lack of written description.
As the material(s) to be deposited as based on the generic first compound and the second compound wherein the specification provides no written description as to how specific permutations within the genus (the first compound and the second compound) are selected from the vast number of variant options to achieve the claimed deposition temperature it is not clear that applicant was in possession of the full scope of claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is also rejected for lack of written description.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-12, 14, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham (US 2022/0177492 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-2, 9-12, 14, 17, Fleetham teaches an OLED device including a substrate 210, a cathode 215, an emissive layer 220, a hole transport layer 225, and an anode 230 (paragraph 156). Although many of the examples provided herein describe various layers as comprising a single material, it is understood that combinations of materials, such as a mixture of host and dopant, or more generally a mixture, may be used (paragraph 157). The formulation can include one or more components selected from the group consisting of a solvent, a host, a hole injection material, hole transport material, electron blocking material, hole blocking material, and an electron transport material (paragraph 171).
The office interprets the above to mean that the formulations included in the scope of the device is inclusive of two compounds in a given layer which is viewed as a composition. Said compounds are viewed as inclusive of host materials which can be represented by a first compound Fleetham-PG-32 (page 32):
PNG
media_image1.png
301
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fleetham-PG-32 reads in applicants’ Formula 1 wherein all R(s) = D
Second compound represented by Fleetham-PG-22 (page 22):
PNG
media_image2.png
322
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fleetham-PG-22 reads on applicants’ Formula 2 wherein all R25-R27= D; R21-R24 = D; c1 =0; c2 = 1, L2 = direct bond.
PNG
media_image2.png
322
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As Fleetham teaches an OLED wherein there are various layer containing formulations which vary in terms of a single compound, at least one compound or a mixture, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have selected from the exemplified compound which would have included Fleetham-PG-22 and Fleetham-PG-32 which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claims 1-2, 9, 17).
Applicant amended claim 1 to include a new limitation the composition is a pre-mixed mixture. This is viewed as a process.
If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the office provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with evident establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product (in re Marosi, 710 F.2nd, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983, MPEP 2113). Therefore, only the product is being treated.
The above compounds may be a host, and the first organic layer may be an emissive layer that comprises a phosphorescent emitter (paragraph 136). The phosphorescent emitter can be represented by Fleetham-PG-104 (page 104):
PNG
media_image3.png
403
368
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(per claims 10-12).
The selection of the suitable emission material(s) to be used in a light emitting layer for light emission in the claimed wavelength is viewed as within the knowledge base of a skilled artisan, absent unexpected result (per claim 14).
Regarding Claim 15, Fleetham teaches the OLED layers may be deposited by any suitable method such as thermal evaporation, ink-jet and organic vapor jet printing (paragraph 159).
The office views the above as a showing of a deposition method wherein a formulation as discussed above would be introduced into a chamber and heated to deposit a layer of said formulation, absent unexpected result (per claim 15).
Regarding Claims 19-20, Fleetham teaches the OLED be used in consumer product such as a flat panel display (paragraph 149) (per claims 19-20).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham (US 2022/0177492 A1) in view of SIM (US 2020/0194683 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Fleetham teaches the device of claim 10 and also teaches that the device may contain a delayed fluorescence emitter, or a component of an exciplex that is a fluorescent emitter or a delayed fluorescence emitter (paragraph 139). Fleetham fails to mention a specific material.
Sim teaches an OLED (paragraph 97) which contains a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material (paragraph 104) wherein said compound can be represented by Compound 30 (page 11):
PNG
media_image4.png
406
580
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The parent ring system includes nitrogen and boron as ring forming atoms (per claim 13).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham (US 2022/0177492 A1) in view of Suh (US 2006/0124924).
Regarding Claim 18, Fleetham teaches the device of claim 17, but fails to mention a thin film transistor. Fleetham teaches the device used in a display device (paragraph 161).
Suh teaches thin film transistor (TFT) and an organic electroluminescent display including the same. The organic electroluminescent display includes: a gate electrode; source and drain electrodes that are insulated from the gate electrode; an organic semiconductor layer that is insulated from the gate electrode and electrically connected to the source and the drain electrodes. The TFT is used in a flat panel display (abstract).
As both Fleetham and Suh teach electronic devices used in displays, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have arranged used the device of Fleetham according to a known configuration with respect to the source, drain, gate and active layer which would have included the configuration taught Suh which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 18).
Response to Amendment
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
