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 .
Response to Amendments
2. The Amendment(s) filed June 1st, 2026 is/are noted. Applicant’s amendment(s) to the Specification to overcome the objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/25/2026 are noted. Applicant’s amendment(s) to the Specification have overcome the objection(s) to the Title previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/25/2026, so the objection(s) to the Title has been withdrawn.
The status of the claims is noted.
3. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
4. Claims 1-20 have been fully considered in examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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).
Further, with respect to the quantity of experimentation, it is now noted and emphasized that the burden of experimentation does not hinge solely on determination of a material candidate. Multiple other experimental questions are introduced in the absence of proper guidance from the instant application’s disclosure. First, it is unclear to what extent variables like geometry, proportion, and the presence of adjacent components have on the “temperature sensitivity factor” of a particular light emitting element overall. For example, one of ordinary skill is required to experiment to address a question such as if ‘changing the thickness of an organic light emitting layer affects temperature sensitivity factor’. Second, while the instant application’s specification does provide some parameters as criteria for candidate materials to satisfy to address the claimed temperature sensitivity factor range – it is unclear to what extent these criteria determine whether a material will definitely meet the temperature sensitivity factor criteria. For example, if a material of an organic light emitting element inherently meets the mobility characteristics discloses in [0303-0307] of the instant application’s specification – but lacks the energy gap characteristic(s) – could it still have the claimed temperature sensitivity factor? Moreover, related experimental questions – such as if an individual material can somehow be modified to meet the temperature sensitivity factor criteria – persist.
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).
Further, with respect to the quantity of experimentation, it is now noted and emphasized that the burden of experimentation does not hinge solely on determination of a material candidate. Multiple other experimental questions are introduced in the absence of proper guidance from the instant application’s disclosure. First, it is unclear to what extent variables like geometry, proportion, and the presence of adjacent components have on the “change in capacitance” of a particular light emitting element overall. For example, one of ordinary skill is required to experiment to address a question such as if ‘changing the thickness of an organic light emitting layer affects change in capacitance’. Second, while the instant application’s specification does provide some parameters as criteria for candidate materials to satisfy to address the claimed change in capacitance range – it is unclear to what extent these criteria determine whether a material will definitely meet the change in capacitance criteria. For example, if a material of an organic light emitting element inherently meets the mobility characteristics discloses in [0303-0307] of the instant application’s specification – but lacks the energy gap characteristic(s) – could it still have the claimed change in capacitance? Moreover, related experimental questions – such as if an individual material can somehow be modified to meet the change in capacitance criteria – persist.
Claims 14-20 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument(s) of claims 1 and 13 that “Applicant submits that the specification provides sufficient guidance to make and use the claimed invention. Figure 29 and paragraphs [0308] - [0314] of this application provide physical properties of an organic light emitting element according to an embodiment. The values for reorganization energy, transfer integral and energy disorder in Figure 29 allow one of ordinary skill in the art to focus on organic light emitting elements satisfying one or more of the physical properties of Figure 29. Contrary to the Examiner's statement that an effectively infinite number of possible organic material(s) would have to be experimented with under a variety of experimental conditions to determine the true breadth of the recited range, the application provides guidance on physical properties of suitable organic light emitting elements meeting one or more of the conditions in Figure 29” – it is noted that neither Applicant’s Remarks nor the instant application’s specification provide at least one specific example of an organic light emitting element material that would definitively satisfy the claimed temperature sensitivity factor(s) (claim 1) and/or change in capacitance value(s) (claim 13). One of ordinary skill in the art is still left without a starting point to make and use the claimed invention without some burden of experimentation to determine if an organic light emitting element composed of a particular organic material will certainly abide by the claimed temperature sensitivity factor(s) (claim 1) and/or change in capacitance value(s) (claim 13).
Further, while Applicant references parameters which are correlated with these claimed characteristics, such as electron mobility and energy gap(s) [0308-0314 instant app spec], it is unclear to what extent they determine whether a material will definitely have the temperature sensitivity factor(s) and/or change in capacitance value(s). In the absence of any examples of materials which have satisfy both the criteria referred to in [0308-0314 instant app spec] and claimed temperature sensitivity factor(s) (claim 1) and/or change in capacitance value(s) (claim 13), the parameters referenced by Applicant’s Remarks merely serve as experimental guidelines, leaving one of ordinary skill in the art with the burden of having to determine whether or not an organic light emitting element composed of material(s) these criteria will certainly have the claimed temperature sensitivity factor(s) and/or change in capacitance value(s). Thus, the instant Application’s disclosure is still not sufficiently enabling to one of ordinary skill to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
Moreover, with respect to the level of experimentation presenting an undue burden to one of ordinary still in the art, as was stated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) enablement above, and emphasized again below:
The burden of experimentation does not hinge solely on determination of a material candidate. Multiple other experimental questions are introduced in the absence of proper guidance from the instant application’s disclosure. First, it is unclear to what extent variables like geometry, proportion, and the presence of adjacent components have on the “temperature sensitivity factor” and/or “change in capacitance” of a particular light emitting element overall. For example, one of ordinary skill is required to experiment to address a question such as if ‘changing the thickness of an organic light emitting layer affects the temperature sensitivity factor and/or change in capacitance’. Second, while the instant application’s specification does provide some parameters as criteria for candidate materials to satisfy to address the claimed temperature sensitivity factor and/or change in capacitance range – it is unclear to what extent these criteria determine whether a material will definitely meet the temperature sensitivity factor and/or change in capacitance criteria. For example, if a material of an organic light emitting element inherently meets the mobility characteristics discloses in [0303-0307] of the instant application’s specification – but lacks the energy gap characteristic(s) – could it still have the temperature sensitivity factor and/or change in capacitance? Moreover, related experimental questions – such as if an individual material can somehow be modified to meet the temperature sensitivity factor and/or change in capacitance criteria – persist.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 08/13/2026
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights