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 .
Claims 1-20 filed on September 20, 2023 are pending.
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 18 is 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.
With respect to claim 18, a LUMO range and HOMO range for the emitting layer (EML) is recited. The specification describes “in some embodiments” these ranges for the emitting layer (see par. 159 in corresponding USPGUB), but as the EML is formed of a combination of at least three materials (cohosts plus emitter), it is unclear where device embodiments were made with specifically combined materials having the recited properties in the composed layer. The specification does not describe forming a multi-component EML with the recited properties representative of the scope of the claim. The original specification does not appear to provide adequate support the applicant had possession of the claimed invention within the broad scope of an emitting layer as set forth in claim 18.
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 6 and 7 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 6 recites “the HBL interface to the EBL interface”, but these layers are not features of claim 1. Accordingly, the phrase is considered indefinite with respect to the intended structure. Clarification and/or correction are required.
Claim 7 recites “the EBL interface to the HBL interface”, but these are not features of claim 1. Accordingly, the phrase is considered indefinite with respect to the intended structure. Clarification and/or correction are required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11-14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinoshita et al. (US 2009/0026939 A1).
Kinoshita et al. discloses organic electroluminescent devices with a light emitting layer comprising a first host, second host and a light emitter all having a concentration gradient through the layer thickness (see Figure 2):
PNG
media_image1.png
316
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
At least example devices no. 1 and 2 are disclosed (see par. 519-523 and further see all examples through par. 553) and comprise an ITO anode, hole injection layer, hole transport layer, the light emitting layer, electron transport layer, and electron injecting layer (see par. 501-523). The graded materials included in a light emitting layer meet the requirements of instant claims 1, 2, and 20.
With respect to claim 4, material ETH-1 reads upon “ET” host (see examples par. 519-523 and 524 top of page 44):
PNG
media_image2.png
154
190
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to claim 5, material mCP meets the requirement of a “HT” host (see examples par. 519-523 and 524 bottom of page 43):
PNG
media_image3.png
134
232
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to claim 14, the above shown mCP material has a carbazole group.
With respect to claim 8, the Kinoshita recited hole transporting layer meets the structure requirement of an “electron blocking layer” of instant claim 8 as hole transportation is synonymous with electron blocking (see par. 505-506, 516, 517, 520-523).
With respect to claim 11, the first electrode in the examples is made of indium tin oxide (ITO) (see par. 502, 520).
With respect to claim 12, the 10 nm “hole transporting layer” taught by Kinoshita et al. is considered to meet the structural requirement of the recited layer between the first electrode and emitting layer (see par. 505-506).
With respect to claim 13, the electron transporting layer of the examples is 40 nm thick (see par. 510, 520).
With respect to claim 19, example devices produce a “light” (see examples at par. 501-553).
Further regarding claim 20, the device layers are deposited (see examples within par. 501-553).
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 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (US 2009/0026939 A1).
Kinoshita et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
With respect to claim 9, the Kinoshita et al. example devices do not specifically include both an electron transporting layer and a hole blocking “HBL” layer. The function of hole blocking is synonymous with electron transporting and adding a second electron transport layer would meet the required layered structure. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included two electron transporting layers, which would meet the requirement of the recited “ETL” and “HBL”, because mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04).
With respect to claim 10, the thickness of the ITO anode is not specifically mentioned in the example; however, the anode thickness is taught in the range of from 10 nm to 50 micrometers. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have formed an anode at a thickness of 50 nm to 100 nm, because Kinoshita et al. teaches the thickness range as desirable. One would expect to achieve a functional anode of the recited range and within the disclosure of Kinoshita et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 3, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (US 2009/0026939 A1) in view of Hamze et al. (US 2021/0288271 A1).
Kinoshita et al. teaches a light emitting layer comprises a light emitting material that is a metal complex and also teaches a fluorescent material may be used (see 67). The metal ion of a metal complex may include at least copper (see par. 228). It is not seen where a specific metal complex the same as in instant claims 15 or 16 is described or where the emitting material is described by Kinoshita et al. as having delayed fluorescence per instant claim 3. In analogous art, Hamze et al. teaches TADF emitters of formula I (see Hamze abstract and par. 6). More specifically, the formula I material may be the following copper-containing compound, which is the same as a “TADF” instant claim 15 Formula A compound per a specific instant claim 16 compound:
PNG
media_image4.png
192
270
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Hamze par. 58, page 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected a copper metal complex TADF emitter material as taught by Hamze et al. for a light emitting layer of a device according to Kinoshita et al., because one would expect a Hamze et al. formula I emitter to be useful as an emitting material as desired for an emitting layer of a device according to Kinoshita et al. One would expect to achieve a functional device using materials as taught by Kinoshita et al. and Hamze et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (US 2009/0026939 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0098716 A1).
Kinoshita et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
While Kinoshita et al. teaches host material that may be a triazine material (see par. 423), it is not seen where a material specifically the same as Formula I in claim 17 is described. In analogous art, Lee eta l. teaches using two host compounds in an emission layer where one of the materials is a triazine (Formula 2, abstract). Specifically, the triazine may be the following “ET1-6” (see Lee par. 33, page 7):
PNG
media_image5.png
176
284
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected a host material as taught by Lee et al. for a device according to Kinoshita et al., because one would expect a Lee et al. formula 2 host material such as ET1-6 to be similarly useful as a host in a device according to Kinoshita et al. One would expect to achieve a functional device using materials as taught by Kinoshita et al. and Lee et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
-KR 10-2006-01239455A discusses providing a dopant gradient. The reference is considered relevant to the field of the endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer 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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights