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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Claim 1 recites the light-emitting layer comprises a red light-emitting unit, a green light-emitting unit and a blue light-emitting unit, which are disposed side by side, and at least one of the red light-emitting unit and the green light-emitting unit comprises a host material, a thermally activated delayed fluorescence TADF sensitizing agent and a narrow-spectrum boron-containing dye.
The specification while being enabling for a host material, a (TADF) sensitizing agent, and a boron-containing dye does not reasonably provide enablement for the unlimited scope of said materials in claim 1.
The specification does not enable a person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention commensurate in scope with claim 1.
The office notes the host examples in the specification (paragraph 0039); however, said examples are not commensurate in scope with the unlimited scope in claim 1.
The office notes the TADF sensitizing agent examples in the specification (paragraph 0040); however, said examples are not commensurate in scope with the unlimited scope in claim 1.
The office notes a narrow-spectrum boron-containing dye examples in the specification (paragraph 0041); however, said examples are not commensurate in scope with the unlimited scope in claim 1.
Claim 1 also recites:
the red light electron blocking layer and the red light-emitting unit are provided correspondingly in a laminated manner, and the green light electron blocking layer and the green light-emitting unit are provided correspondingly in a laminated manner; and HOMOR of a red light electron blocking material in the red light electron blocking layer, HOMOG of a green light electron blocking material in the green light electron blocking layer and HOMOB of a blue light electron blocking material in the blue light electron blocking layer meet the following requirements:
HOMOB <HOMOR, HOMOB <HOMOG, and HOMOG <HOMOR
wherein HOMOR is a highest occupied molecular orbital energy level of the red light electron blocking material in the red light electron blocking layer, HOMOG is a highest occupied molecular orbital energy level of the green light electron blocking material in the green light electron blocking layer, and HOMOB is a highest occupied molecular orbital energy level of the blue light electron blocking material in the blue light electron blocking layer.
The above material categories, blue, red and green light electron blocking materials are viewed as genus “compounds” with the following electronic relationships:
HOMOB <HOMOR, HOMOB <HOMOG, and HOMOG <HOMOR
showing a lack of a scope of enablement to clearly define the material options for meeting the above electronic relationships commensurate in scope with claim 1
(A) The breadth of the claims far exceeds the written description which is limited to only a few examples.
(B) The nature of the invention as provided by the specification limits the materials to a few classes of organic compounds for which claim 1 are not so limited.
(C) The state of the prior art is limited in the written description which does not reflect the unlimited scope of the claim1.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill in the art without specific guidance would not be deemed to have the know-how to carry out the full scope of the invention as recited in the claims due to a lack of a written description.
(E) The level of predictability in the art is indeterminate as the class or structure is generic which is beyond the written description. How would one determine the class and function of suitable compounds for reasonable search queries?
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor in the selection of compounds suitable to practice the invention is lacking based on the limited written description.
HOMOB <HOMOR, HOMOB <HOMOG, and HOMOG <HOMOR
How would one determine the full scope of materials meeting the above criteria?
(G) Working examples are limited to a few examples far beneath the scope of the claims.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure is excessive as the claimed scope would be expected to encompass a plethora of compound classes not included in the written description.
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to carry out the scope of the invention in the claims.
Therefore, claim 1 and all claims requiring the limitations claim 1 are rejected based on the lack of a clear scope of enablement.
Claims 1-20 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 host material, a TADF sensitizing agent, and a boron-containing dye does not reasonably provide a written description for the invention encompassed by the claim1.
The written description of a host material, a TADF sensitizing agent, and a boron-containing dye, does not allow for a determination of the metes and bounds to conduct comprehensive structure searches as said compounds are simply defined as generic with no limiting chemical features. Mere generic materials do not allow for setting fully searchable parameters to ascertain a complete data set due to exceeding retrievable maximums. Moreover, there is no means of determining how said compounds as unlimited in claim 1 from the above three generic categories meet the required electronic relationships with each other from factors included in the written description.
The deficiency is further highlighted by the limitations which require specific ratios for HOMOB <HOMOR, HOMOB <HOMOG, and HOMOG <HOMOR values.
The specification while offering examples wherein a structural diversity is very limited in comparison to scope of the claim 1. Claim 1 lacks a defined scope fully supported by a written description relative to the class of the compound or the function of the compound. This results in indeterminate structural requirements which does not offer enough support to show that the applicant was in possession of the invention as recited. Therefore, claim 1 and all claims requiring the limitations claim 1 are rejected as lacking a suitable written description.
Conclusion
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