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 § 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.
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 1, 4, 12, 14, 17, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US 2019/0296254) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (Adv. Mater. 2016, 28, 2777-2781).
Considering Claims 1, 4, 14, 17, 25-28: Ko et al. teaches an electroluminescence device (¶0007) comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an emission layer disposed between the two electrodes (¶0008-09), the emission layer comprising a first compound that is an organometallic platinum compound of the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
168
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(¶0013), which reads on structure D-1a-1 of the instant specification (¶00108), a second compound of the formula
PNG
media_image2.png
182
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(¶0014), preferably
PNG
media_image3.png
164
268
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(¶0246), which reads on Formula H2 (¶0089) and ETI-1 (Claim 1) of the instant specification, and a third compound of the formula
PNG
media_image4.png
96
166
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(¶0015), preferably
PNG
media_image5.png
184
124
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Table 2), which reads on formula H-1 (¶0085) and compound HT-08 (Claim 14) of the instant specification.
Ko et al. does not teach the inclusion of the claimed second dopant. However, Hatakeyama et al. teaches the use a compound of the formula
PNG
media_image6.png
101
153
media_image6.png
Greyscale
as the fluorescent dopant for an electroluminescent device (Scheme 1, pg. 2779). The compound has a peak of abruption and emission within 50 nm of each other (Table 1). Hatakeyama et al. teaches the compound as being an assistant dopant for fluorescent emitters (pg. 2781). Ko et al. and Hatakeyama et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely organic electroluminescent devices. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added the compound of Hatakeyama et al. as an assistant dopant in the composition of Ko et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Hatakeyama et al. suggests, they have small ΔEst, high Φ, and excellent color purity (pg. 2780).
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. The references teach the same chemical structures as disclosed in the instant specification. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the luminescent onset wavelengths, the normalized light absorption spectrum properties, and lowest triplet excitation energy level property, would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Considering Claim 12: Ko et al. teaches the ratio of the first and second host materials as being 3:7 or 4:6 (Table 3).
Claims 13 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US 2019/0296254) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (Adv. Mater. 2016, 28, 2777-2781) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0346029).
Considering Claim 13: Ko et al. and Hatakeyama et al. collectively teach the device of claim 1 as shown above.
Ko et al. and Hatakeyama et al. are silent towards the amounts of the first and second dopant. However, Kim et al. teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode; a second electrode opposite the first electrode; and an emission layer disposed between the first and second electrode (¶0004), where the emission layer comprises a host having a first luminescent onset wavelength (¶0004); a first dopant having a second luminescent onset wavelength (¶0060-61); and a second dopant having a third luminescent onset wavelength (¶0060, 62). Kim et al. teaches each of the dopants as being present in an amount of 0.1 to 15 weight percent (¶0063). Kim et al. teaches the amount of each dopant as controlling the energy transition and emission spectrum of the composition (¶0063). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected amounts of the first and second dopant in the overlapping portions of the claimed range, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Kim et al. suggest, to control the energy transition and emission spectrum of the composition (¶0063).
Considering Claim 29: Ko et al. and Hatakeyama et al. collectively teach the device of claim 1 as shown above.
Ko et al. does not teach the inclusion of the claimed compound. However, Kim et al. teaches adding a compound of the formula
PNG
media_image7.png
228
260
media_image7.png
Greyscale
which reads on formula (D-2b). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the compound of Kim et al. to the emission layer of Ko et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Kim et al. suggests, to provide delayed onset fluorescence to the emission layer (¶0059).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US 2019/0296254) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (Adv. Mater. 2016, 28, 2777-2781) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (Adv. Mater. 2014, 26, 2931-2936).
Considering Claim 16: Ko et al. and Hatakeyama et al. collectively teach the device of claim 1 as shown above.
Ko et al. does not teach the first dopant as having the claimed structure. However, Li et al. teaches a phosphorescent dopant of the formula
PNG
media_image8.png
82
98
media_image8.png
Greyscale
for an organic electroluminescent device (pg. 2931-2932). Ko et al. and Li et al. are analogous art as they concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely organic electroluminescent devices. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the dopant of Li et al. as the phosphorescent dopant of Ko et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Li et al. suggests, it has high stability and efficiency (pg. 2934).
Claims 18, 20, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US 2019/0296254) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (Adv. Mater. 2016, 28, 2777-2781).
Considering Claims 18, 20, and 30: Ko et al. teaches an electroluminescence device (¶0007) comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an emission layer disposed between the two electrodes (¶0008-09), the emission layer comprising a first compound that is an organometallic platinum compound of the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
168
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(¶0013), which reads on structure D-1a-1 of the instant specification (¶00108), a second compound of the formula
PNG
media_image2.png
182
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(¶0014), preferably
PNG
media_image3.png
164
268
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(¶0246), which reads on Formula H2 (¶0089) and ETI-1 (Claim 1) of the instant specification, and a third compound of the formula
PNG
media_image4.png
96
166
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(¶0015), preferably
PNG
media_image5.png
184
124
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Table 2), which reads on formula H-1 (¶0085) and compound HT-08 (Claim 14) of the instant specification.
Ko et al. does not teach the inclusion of the claimed second dopant. However, Hatakeyama et al. teaches the use a compound of the formula
PNG
media_image6.png
101
153
media_image6.png
Greyscale
as the fluorescent dopant for an electroluminescent device (Scheme 1, pg. 2779). The compound has a peak of abruption and emission within 50 nm of each other (Table 1). Hatakeyama et al. teaches the compound as being an assistant dopant for fluorescent emitters (pg. 2781). Ko et al. and Hatakeyama et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely organic electroluminescent devices. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added the compound of Hatakeyama et al. as an assistant dopant in the composition of Ko et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Hatakeyama et al. suggests, they have small ΔEst, high Φ, and excellent color purity (pg. 2780).
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. The references teach the same chemical structures as disclosed in the instant specification. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the luminescent onset wavelengths, the normalized light absorption spectrum properties, and lowest triplet excitation energy level property, would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Claims 21, 24, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US 2019/0296254) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (Adv. Mater. 2016, 28, 2777-2781).
Considering Claims 21, 24, and 31: Ko et al. teaches an electroluminescence device (¶0007) comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an emission layer disposed between the two electrodes (¶0008-09), the emission layer comprising a first compound that is an organometallic platinum compound of the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
168
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(¶0013), which reads on structure D-1a-1 of the instant specification (¶00108), a second compound of the formula
PNG
media_image2.png
182
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(¶0014), preferably
PNG
media_image3.png
164
268
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(¶0246), which reads on Formula H2 (¶0089) and ETI-1 (Claim 1) of the instant specification, and a third compound of the formula
PNG
media_image4.png
96
166
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(¶0015), preferably
PNG
media_image5.png
184
124
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Table 2), which reads on formula H-1 (¶0085) and compound HT-08 (Claim 14) of the instant specification.
Ko et al. does not teach the inclusion of the claimed second dopant. However, Hatakeyama et al. teaches the use a compound of the formula
PNG
media_image6.png
101
153
media_image6.png
Greyscale
as the fluorescent dopant for an electroluminescent device (Scheme 1, pg. 2779). The compound has a peak of abruption and emission within 50 nm of each other (Table 1). Hatakeyama et al. teaches the compound as being an assistant dopant for fluorescent emitters (pg. 2781). Ko et al. and Hatakeyama et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely organic electroluminescent devices. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added the compound of Hatakeyama et al. as an assistant dopant in the composition of Ko et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Hatakeyama et al. suggests, they have small ΔEst, high Φ, and excellent color purity (pg. 2780).
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. The references teach the same chemical structures as disclosed in the instant specification. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the luminescent onset wavelengths, the normalized light absorption spectrum properties, and lowest triplet excitation energy level property, would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4, 12-14, 16, 17, 20, and 24-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767