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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/01/2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-20 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding independent claim 1, with respect to:
(A) The breadth of the claims; The instant application’s specification does not provide reasonable enablement with respect to the scope of “the organic light emitting element has a value of a temperature sensitivity factor (TSF) in a range of about 0.25×10-1 Cd·m2/V to about 0.51×10-1 cd·m2/V” in the context of claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to realize the breadth of this range without undue experimentation because the instant application’s disclosure fails to recite the organic material(s) of the light emitting element which give rise to the claimed range. Not only does this lack of material(s) disclosure fail to enable one to make and use the claimed invention to satisfy the required range – it renders the scope of the claimed range unclear by neglecting to provide any exemplary evidence of what organic material(s) would be included or excluded as being able to satisfy the experimental conditions required by the claimed range. Without evidentiary guidance from the instant application’s disclosure, an effectively infinite number of possible organic material(s) would have to be experimented with under a variety of experimental conditions (current densities, luminance values, voltages, temperatures) to determine the true breadth of the recited range. (See MPEP 2164.08).
(B) The nature of the invention, (C) The state of the prior art, and (E) The level of predictability in the art; The claim recites a general quantity, “the organic light emitting element has a temperature sensitivity factor (TSF) …” - temperature sensitivity factor, which is inherent to all organic light emitting elements across the art. However, while all prior art with an “organic light emitting element” has an inherent temperature sensitivity factor (TSF), the vast majority of prior art with “organic light emitting element(s)” is silent with respect to this specific parameter. Because relatively little is directly known in the prior art about the nature of the invention concerning the temperature sensitivity factor (TSF), the instant application should provide ample details with respect to the nature (composition) of the organic material(s) of the organic light emitting element which enable the claimed temperature sensitivity factor. However, in the absence of any disclosure of organic materials compositions which enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention to attain the claimed temperature sensitivity factor, one of ordinary skill in the art is left with an enormous degree of uncertainty with respect to the nature of the invention (TSF) and its predictability compared with the prior art. Therefore, the instant application’s disclosure is not sufficiently enabling with respect to the relationship between the nature of the instant application’s invention, and its predictability, over the prior art (See MPEP 2164.03).
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure; The instant application fails to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use each aspect of the claimed invention because the instant application’s disclosure is silent with respect to the organic material composition(s) which achieves the claimed temperature sensitivity factor (TSF) of the organic light emitting element. Claim 1 treats this as a crucial aspect of the claimed invention, however, it would be impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the instant application’s disclosure to realize the claimed invention without excessive experimentation – time consuming trial and error - to determine the specific chemical compound(s) for composition of the organic light emitting element. Therefore, the instant application’s disclosure is not sufficiently enabling for one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention without undue experimentation. (See MPEP 2164.05(b), 2164.06).
Claims 2-12 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding independent claim 13, with respect to:
(A) The breadth of the claims; The instant application’s specification does not provide reasonable enablement with respect to the scope of “the organic light emitting element has a value of about 1000% or more of an amount of change in capacitance (ΔCap(c, T))” in the context of claim 13. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to realize the breadth of this range without undue experimentation because the instant application’s disclosure fails to recite the organic material(s) of the light emitting element which give rise to the claimed range. Not only does this lack of material(s) disclosure fail to enable one to make and use the claimed invention to satisfy the required range – it renders the scope of the claimed range unclear by neglecting to provide any exemplary evidence of what organic material(s) would be included or excluded as being able to satisfy the experimental conditions required by the claimed range. Without evidentiary guidance from the instant application’s disclosure, an effectively infinite number of possible organic material(s) would have to be experimented with under a variety of experimental conditions (voltages, temperatures) to determine the true breadth of the recited range. (See MPEP 2164.08).
(B) The nature of the invention, (C) The state of the prior art, and (E) The level of predictability in the art; The claim recites a general quality, “the organic light emitting element has a value of about 1000% or more of an amount of change in capacitance (ΔCap(c, T)) …” – change in capacitance, which is inherent to all organic light emitting elements across the art. However, while all prior art with an “organic light emitting element” has an inherent capacitance, the vast majority of prior art with “organic light emitting element(s)” is silent with respect to this specific parameter. Because relatively little is directly known in the prior art about the nature of the invention concerning the capacitance and change(s) thereof, the instant application should provide ample details with respect to the nature (composition) of the organic material(s) of the organic light emitting element which enable the change in capacitance. However, in the absence of any disclosure of organic materials compositions which enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention to attain the claimed change in capacitance, one of ordinary skill in the art is left with an enormous degree of uncertainty with respect to the nature of the invention (change in capacitance) and its predictability compared with the prior art. Therefore, the instant application’s disclosure is not sufficiently enabling with respect to the relationship between the nature of the instant application’s invention, and its predictability, over the prior art (See MPEP 2164.03).
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure; The instant application fails to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use each aspect of the claimed invention because the instant application’s disclosure is silent with respect to the organic material composition(s) which achieves the claimed change in capacitance of the organic light emitting element. Claim 13 treats this as a crucial aspect of the claimed invention, however, it would be impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the instant application’s disclosure to realize the claimed invention without excessive experimentation - time consuming trial and error - to determine the specific chemical compound(s) for composition of the organic light emitting element. Therefore, the instant application’s disclosure is not sufficiently enabling for one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention without undue experimentation. (See MPEP 2164.05(b), 2164.06).
Claims 14-20 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN AYERS WINTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30 am - 7:00 pm (EST).
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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 AYERS WINTERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2892 03/11/2026
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892