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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-161354, filed on October 6, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 4, 2023 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on October 4, 2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The “c” in the definition of the speed of light and the “n” for the refractive index of the medium on page 12 should be lower case to match equation [1]. It is also unclear if K2 should be a single value, or whether this is a typographical error for “K” raised to the second power. Please clarify.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 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.
With respect to independent claim 1, the claim requires an organic light-emitting device with two laminated light-emitting layers wherein the first light-emitting layer comprises a first organic compound and a first and second fluorescent light-emitting material, and the second light-emitting layer comprises a second organic compound and a third fluorescent light-emitting material and the second light-emitting layer does not comprise the first light-emitting material, and the light-emitting materials satisfy the following relationship:
PNG
media_image1.png
212
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While the instant description provides 33 examples of blue dopants, 32 examples of green dopants, and 27 examples of red dopants which may be used for the first, second, and third light emitting materials, the singlet energy of only 8 blue dopants, 7 green dopants, and 5 red dopants is actually given (Table 1), and only green dopants GD2, GD10, GD16, and GD28 are ever used for the second and third light emitting materials, and only red dopants RD1, RD4, RD5, and RD21 are ever used as the first light emitting material. It is unclear which, if any, additional example compounds meet the requirements of the instant claim. Further, it is unclear if additional fluorescent compounds, which are not in the instant disclosure, are capable of meeting the limitations of the instant claims.
The limited examples described in the written description does 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). Further, given the multitude and diverse structures of fluorescent compounds that could meet the required singlet energy level requirements, and that the specification examples do not show a chemical motif that is common to all the different species, the specification does not provide support for the breadth of the claims.
Claims 2-19 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 4 and 5 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.
With respect to claims 4 and 5, the claims are drawn to an inequality between two amounts, however, the claims require a specific “amount”, but do not specify what unit of measurement is being used. For example, while the mass percent of a first compound in a first composition may be less than the mass percent of a second compound in a second composition, the total mass of the first compound may actually be much greater than the total mass of the second compound when the first composition has a much larger total mass than the second composition. Interpreting the metes and bounds of the claims requires units.
In continuing examination, the “amount” of compound is being interpreted as the mass percent.
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 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Takaya et al. (US 2020/0161558 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Takaya discloses Example 1 (paragraphs 0137-0142) which is an organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode (Ti, anode), a second light emitting layer, a first light emitting layer laminated directly on the second light emitting layer (paragraph 0021), and a second electrode (Mg/Ag, cathode). The composition of each layer is described in Table 3 (page 36), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
504
796
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Relevant compounds and chemical properties are given below.
PNG
media_image3.png
234
422
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
316
412
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
434
405
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As pictured above, the second light-emitting layer, which is analogous to the instant first light-emitting layer, comprises a first organic compound (Host EM1), a first light-emitting material (red dopant RD5) and a second light-emitting material (green dopant GD10), and the first light-emitting layer, which is analogous to the instant second light-emitting layer, comprises a second organic compound (Host EM1), a third light-emitting material (green dopant GD10), and a blue dopant (BD24).
This combination meets the requirements of the instant claim as S1D2 (GD10, 2.4 eV) is greater than S1D1 (RD5, 2.0 eV), and S1D2 (GD10, 2.4 eV) minus S1D1 (RD5, 2.0 eV) is greater than S1D3 (GD10, 2.4 eV) minus S1D2 (GD10, 2.4 eV).
Takaya is silent to the singlet energy of these compounds. However, the singlet energy of a compound is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when each fluorescent compound is used as an emitter in the light-emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device, which would result in the property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claim is considered to be anticipated over Takaya, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Takaya was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II). A rejection under 35 USC 102 and 103 can be made when the prior art product seems to be identical except that the prior art is silent as to an inherent characteristic. See MPEP 2112(III).
With respect to claim 2, Takaya teaches the device of claim 1, and the LUMO of RD5 (D1) is more negative than the LUMO of EM1 (H1), as pictured above.
With respect to claim 3, Takaya teaches the device of claim 1, and the LUMO of GD10 (D3) is more negative than the LUMO of EM1 (H2), as pictured above.
With respect to claim 4, Takaya teaches the device of claim 1, and the second light-emitting material is present in 2 % mass, and the third light emitting material is present in 0.1 % mass, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 5, Takaya teaches the device of claim 1, and the second light emitting material is present in 2 % mass, and the first light emitting material is present in 0.4 % mass, as pictured above.
With respect to claims 6, 7, 8, and 9, Takaya teaches the device of claim 6, and the second and third compounds are identical (GD10) and comprise a fluoranthene skeleton, as pictured above. The difference in HOMO and LUMO is 0.
With respect to claim 10, Takaya teaches the device of claim 1, and the second light emitting layer comprises an assist material, BD24, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 11, Takaya teaches the device of claim 1, and the light emission color of the first material, RD5, is red and the emission color of the third light emitting compound, GD10, is green, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 12, Takaya teaches the device of claim 11, and the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, and the first light emitting layer is closer to the anode and the second light emitting layer is closer to the cathode, as pictured and discussed above.
With respect to claim 14, Takaya teaches the device of claim 1, and the first and second organic compounds are both EM1, as pictured above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaya et al. (US 2020/0161558 A1) as applied above.
With respect to claim 13, Takaya teaches the device of claim 12, as discussed above.
Takaya also teaches that the amount of the green dopant in the first light emitting layer (more preferably 0.1 mass % or more and less than 1%, paragraph 0091) may be greater than the amount of red dopant in the second light emitting layer (more preferably 0.1 mass % or more and less than 0.5 mass %, paragraph 0089).
Examiner notes that Takaya teaches that the upper limit of the more preferred mass % of the red dopant (0.5 mass %) is less than the upper limit of the more preferred mass % of the green dopant in the first light emitting layer (instant second light emitting layer) (1%).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a greater mass percent of the green dopant in the instant second light emitting layer than mass percent of red dopant in the instant first light emitting layer with a reasonable expectation of achieving a while organic EL element with low drive voltage, well-balanced red, green, and blue emissions, and undergoes little change in white emission chromaticity when subjected to voltage variation (paragraph 0046), as taught by Takaya.
With respect to claim 15, Takaya teaches the device of claim 1, and Takaya also teaches that full-color light emitting arrays including organic electroluminescent elements may be formed into pixels (paragraph 0002), and that a plurality of the described organic EL element may form a screen controlled by a thin film transistor (TFT).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a display apparatus, such as a full-color light emitting array, wherein the screen is formed of a plurality of organic EL elements in the form of pixels, which are controlled by a transistor, as taught by Takaya.
With respect to claim 16, Takaya teaches the device of claim 1, and Takaya also teaches an image pickup apparatus comprising an optical unit including a plurality of lenses, an image pickup device configured to receive light passing through the optical unit, and a display unit configured to display an image captured by the image pickup device wherein the display unit includes the organic light-emitting device (paragraph 0124).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device in an image pickup apparatus with the described structure, as taught by Takaya.
With respect to claim 17, Takaya teaches the device of claim 1, and Takaya also teaches an electronic apparatus comprising a display unit including the device, a housing with the display unit, and a communication unit being disposed in the housing and communicating with an outside (paragraph 0127 and Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device in a display unit of an electronic apparatus with the claimed structure, as taught by Takaya.
With respect to claim 18, Takaya teaches the device of claim 1, and Takaya also teaches a light source including the device, a lighting apparatus, and a light diffusion unit or optical film configured to transmit light emitted from the light source (paragraph 0128 and Figure 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device in a light source of a lighting apparatus with the claimed structure, as taught by Takaya.
With respect to claim 19, Takaya teaches the device of claim 1, and Takaya also teaches a lighting unit with a body including the device, for use in a moving object, such as a ship (paragraphs 0131-0132).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device in a lighting unit with a body inside of a moving object such as a ship, as taught by Takaya.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamada et al. (US 2019/0333968 A1) – teaches an organic EL device with different hosts in different light emitting layers.
Ishige et al. (US 2014/0231787 A1) – teaches an organic EL device with a laminated emitting layer wherein the host and dopants have a specific energy level relationship.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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 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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights