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(a)
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, 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.
Independent claim 1 requires Condition 1 that is a formula defining a property that is changed by every possible parameter in the device including the number of layers, the thickness of each layer, and the composition of each layer etc. whereas the device is open to the inclusion of any combination of layers, thicknesses and materials so long as they meet the calculated parameter. The instant description includes a general description of device characteristics but does not teach what number of layers, thicknesses of layers, and compositions of layers would necessarily lead to meeting this condition 1. The description only provides 25 examples of such a combination that meets this requirement all of which have a very specific combination of electrode materials, number of layers and layer thicknesses with the only differences being the composition of the light emitting layer. The specification further provides exceptionally broad guidance on what layers and materials that might be useable for the device but provides no further description of which number of layers, thicknesses of layers, and compositions of layers would necessarily lead to meeting this condition 1. The 25 highly similar 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). Similarly, Claim 16 further requires that the device be a tandem device comprising additional emitting layers and charge generating layers. Applicant has provided zero examples of such a device that would meet that structure and also meet condition 1.
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 few very specific device structures, does not reasonably provide enablement for all claimed devices that meet a condition 1 as claimed. 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, use or identify the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Case law holds that applicant’s specification must be “commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]” Ex Parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1990). Otherwise, undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use Applicant’s invention. The test for undue experimentation as to whether or not a light emitting device within the scope of the claims can be made to meet condition 1 as claimed and whether the claims meet the test is stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed.Cir. 1988). Upon applying this test to claims 1-20, it is believed that undue experimentation would be required because:
Breadth of the claims: The claims are exceptionally broad including any light emitting device comprising two electrodes and an interlayer between them comprising at least 2 materials (dopant and host) that satisfy a ‘condition 1’ that is the sum of the dipole moment of each material as calculated by a density functional theory multiplied by its weight fraction relative to the other required material that is then multiplied by the difference in the device’s driving voltage and its “charge injection voltage”.
Nature of the invention: The dipole moment as calculated by DFT is not a fixed value but depends on the specific DFT calculations employed. Further, the weight fraction of the material is highly contingent upon the molecular weight of the material(s) and also on the purity of materials and the specific layer deposition process employed (e.g. vapor deposition or solution based methods). The driving voltage is a function of every parameter of the device, such as the electrode selection, hole or electron transport layer(s) material(s) selection and the thicknesses of those layer(s), buffer layer selection and thicknesses, number of light emitting layers and their respective thicknesses and compositions, among others. Finally, the ‘charge injection voltage’ is a term that is ill defined in the specification, and its measurement appears to be not enabled. The instant specification only describes that this value “has a smallest value among voltages of coordinates at which a change in the current density increase rate is observed in the voltage-current density graph of the light-emitting device, and is in volt (V)”. There is no example of such a graph with the value identified nor any further explanation for how such a graph is prepared nor any information on what parameters affect this value or how it one is selected from the plot. However, it is highly likely that this value also depends upon every possible device configuration parameter, similar to the driving voltage.
State of the prior art: The condition 1 and the “charge injection voltage” are not values or calculations that are established in the prior art.
The level of one of ordinary skill: The ordinarily skilled artisan is capable of preparing a device and measuring the driving voltage thereof as well as calculating a dipole moment of the some of the materials. The ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to prepare a voltage-current density graph but would not be able to identify, based on the specification, the claimed “charge injection voltage”. It is also likely that the ordinarily skilled artisan would arrive at different dipole moment values for various materials as the parameters for DFT calculations may differ somewhat.
The level of predictability in the art: The effects of layer number, thickness and composition on driving voltage are not so predictable that the ordinarily skilled artisan could invision from the instant disclosure devices that would meet the claims beyond the specific examples disclosed in the specification.
Amount of direction provided: Applicant provides only generic direction about layer number, composition and thickness and an insufficient direction for how to measure a “charge injection voltage”.
The existence of working examples: The 25 examples apparently present in the specification all have exceptionally narrow device structures and do not provide a basis for the entire scope of claimed materials.
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: As the layers and materials possible to prepare a device are not limited, an infinite number of candidate devices would need to be prepared, voltages measured and the dipole moments calculated in order to make the scope of the claims.
In light of the above factors, it is seen that undue experimentation would be necessary to make and use the invention of claims 1-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 requires an emission layer comprising at least a host and dopant that meet condition 1 that requires the calculation of a dipole moment based on density functional theory. However, the value of the dipole moment calculated for a material is contingent upon the exact DFT calculation model and parameters used. Therefore, the mets and bounds of the claim are not definite as an artisan would be unable to determine if a given device is within or without the scope of the claims.
Claim 1 requires a device that meets condition 1 that requires the measurement of a “charge injection voltage”. However, the specification is not clear on exactly what such a value is. This value is not a property well known in the art and has no general art accepted meaning. Therefore, the mets and bounds of the claim are not definite as an artisan would be unable to determine if a given device is within or without the scope of the claims.
Claims 7 and 17 each require “a maximum emission wavelength of an emission spectrum of each of m1 dopants is about 500 nanometers to 580 nanometers. “ This limitation is indefinite as the claim does not set forth how the emission spectrum is measured. For example, the maximum emission wavelength of a given material is different depending on the temperature when measured, if it is measured in a solvent and if so which one, in a mixture with other materials and if so which materials, or neat, through electroluminescence or through photoluminescence or combustion etc. Therefore, the mets and bounds of the claim are not definite as an artisan would be unable to determine if a given device is within or without the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 A. Boyd can be reached at (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 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights