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 .
It is noted that Paragraph 8 of the Office Action mailed on 3/2/2026 stated the rejection as Nakano et al (US 2015/0034927) in view of Hatakeyama et al (US 2018/0301629). This was an inadvertent typographical error and the rejection should have stated Nakano et al (US 2015/0034927) in view of Hatakeyama et al (US 2018/0301629) and Li et al (US 2018/0337349)
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/7/2025 has been entered.
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, 3-5,7-20 and 22 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the phosphorescent emitter layer comprises the phosphorescent emitter at a concentration of greater than 50 %”. However, a fair reading of Specification reveals that while there is support to recite that the phosphorescent emitter layer comprises the phosphorescent emitter, there is not support in the Specification to recite the current range of greater than 50 % as recited in claim 1. To that end it is noted that Paragraphs [0176]-[0178] disclose examples where the phosphorescent emitter, e.g. Pd3O8-py5, is the only phosphorescent emitter in the phosphorescent emitter layer, the examples in this section of the originally filed Specification do not disclose the recited range of greater than 50 %. That is, the recited range of greater than 50 %, encompasses amounts such as 55%, 60 %, etc. which are exemplified in the instant Specification. Thus, there is support to recite in the Specification as originally filed that the phosphorescent emitter layer comprises a phosphorescent emitter, or that the phosphorescent emitter is 100 % of the phosphorescent emitter layer, or that the phosphorescent emitter layer consists of the phosphorescent emitter, there is no support in the Specification to recite the concentration range as instantly recited.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al (US 2015/0034927) in view of Hatakeyama et al (US 2018/0301629) and Li et al (US 2018/0337349).
Regarding claim 1, Nakano et al discloses the following white organic light emitting device ([0279] and Figure 2):
PNG
media_image1.png
412
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where the anode (20) corresponds to the recited first electrode; the hole transporting zone (30) corresponds to the recited hole transport layer. The hole transporting zone (30) is in contact with the anode (20). The cathode (60) corresponds to the recited second electrode; and the electron transporting zone (50) corresponds to the recited electron transport layer. The electron transporting zone (50) is in contact with the cathode (60). Layers 40-44 correspond to the recited emissive layer. These emitting layers (40-44) are found between the hole transporting zone (30) and the electron transporting zone (50). The emissive layer comprises a phosphorescent emitting layer (40) and a fluorescent emitting layer (44), where the phosphorescent emitter (40) layer is disposed between the fluorescent emitting layer (44) and is in contact with the hole transporting zone (30). The fluorescent emitter layer (44) is disposed between the phosphorescent emitting layer (40) and the electron transporting zone (50). The fluorescent emitting layer (44) comprises a fluorescent emitter and a host compound ([0311] and [0314]) and emits blue light ([0279]). The phosphorescent emitting layer (40) emits yellow light ([0279]) and contains a phosphorescent emitter ([0310]). Given that the reference does not require that the host compound is necessarily present in the phosphorescent emitter layer (44), the phosphorescent emitting layer (44) can therefore contain 100 mass % of the phosphorescent emitter, within the recited range of greater than 50 % recited in the present claim.
The reference teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above; however, the reference does not disclose that the blue fluorescent emitter harvest singlet excitons as recited in the present claims.
Hatakeyama et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises the following blue light emitting polycyclic aromatic compound ([0127], [0362], and Page 3 – 1-2621):
PNG
media_image2.png
218
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as a fluorescent emitter (Abstract, [0127] and [0001]).
The reference does not explicitly disclose that this compound harvests singlet excitons; however, it is the Examiner’s position given that the reference discloses the identical compound recited in the present claims, that the compound of the reference necessarily harvests singlet excitons. It is noted that the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compound. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. compound harvests singlet excitons would naturally arise and be achieved by a fluorescent layer comprising the fluorescent emitter compound. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot 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. See MPEP § 2112.01. 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 as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
The reference discloses that utilization of this compound in an organic light emitting device results in an excellent organic electroluminescent element (Abstract).
Given that both Nakano et al and Hatakeyama et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising blue light emitting fluorescent emitter layers, and in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the particular as taught by fluorescent emitter disclosed by Hatakeyama et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such fluorescent emitters in fluorescent emitter layer of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Nakano et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combined disclosures of Nakano et al and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above; however, Nakano et al does not disclose that phosphorescent emitter is an excimer emitter and harvests triplet excitons as recited in the present claims.
Li et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises the following the compounds ([0004], [0038], Page 27, Page 32, Page 117, Page 131, and Page 138):
PNG
media_image3.png
221
257
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
228
337
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
195
280
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
166
212
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
229
313
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where M is Pd (II) or Pt (II) ([0006]). While the reference discloses these compounds as metal-assisted delayed fluorescent (MADF) emitters and not phosphorescent emitters as recited in the present claims, given that the reference discloses the identical compounds recited in the present claims, it is the Examiner’s position that the compounds disclosed by the reference are necessarily phosphorescent emitters.
Furthermore, the reference does not explicitly disclose that these compounds harvest triplet excitons and emit yellow-amber light. However, it is the Examiner’s position given that the reference discloses the identical compound recited in the present claims, the compounds disclosed by the reference necessarily harvest triplet excitons and emit yellow-amber light as recited in the present claims.
Li et al does not disclose that the compound is an excimer emitter. However, given that the reference discloses the identical compound, i.e.
PNG
media_image3.png
221
257
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
disclosed in Paragraph [0175] of the instant Specification as Pd3O8-p and as being an excimer emitter, it is the Examiner’s position that the compounds disclosed by Li et al necessarily function as excimer emitters as recited in the present claims.
It is noted that the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compound. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the compound harvests triplet excitons, emits yellow-amber light, and is an excimer emitter, and would naturally arise and be achieved by a phosphorescent layer comprising the phosphorescent emitter compound. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot 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. See MPEP § 2112.01. 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 as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
The reference discloses that the compounds have a small enemy gap between singlet and triplet allowing excitons to be thermally promoted to the singlet state and be efficiently emitted via thermally assisted delayed fluorescence (TADF) while the remaining triplet excitons can emit via the available efficient phosphorescent pathway ([0039]).
Given that both Nakano et al and Li et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising phosphorescent emitter, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the particular emitters as taught by Li et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such emitters in the phosphorescent emitter layer of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Nakano et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is clear that the compounds disclosed by Li et al are square planar complexes.
Regarding claim 4, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is clear that the compounds disclosed by Li et al are tetradentate platinum complexes
Regarding claim 5, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Li et al does not disclose that the compound emits light in the range of about 480 to about 700 nm. However, it is the Examiner’s position given that the reference discloses compound identical to those recited in the present claims, the compounds of the reference necessarily emit light in the range of about 480 to about 700 nm as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 7, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Li et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image8.png
364
438
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by General Formula I:
PNG
media_image9.png
301
440
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where M is Pt(II) or Pd(II); R1, R3, R4, and R5 are H; Y4d and Y5d are N and the remainder of groups Y are C; X2 is O; L1 is absent; L3 an unsubstituted linking group; Ar3 and Ar4 are 6-membered aryl groups. i.e. benzene; Ar1 is a 6-membered heteroaryl; and Ar5 is a 9-membered fused heteroaryl.
Regarding claim 8, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Li et al M is Pd(II).
Regarding claim 11, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Li et discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image10.png
295
489
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by General Formula IV:
PNG
media_image11.png
237
487
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where M is Pt(II) or Pd(II), R1 to R6 are H; Y1a to Y6d are C; U3 and U4 are N; and X is O.
Regarding claim 12, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Li et discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image12.png
275
386
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by General Formula V of the claims:
PNG
media_image13.png
221
376
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
where M is Pt(II) or Pd(II); R1 to R6 are H; Y1a to Y4c are N; and X is O.
Regarding claim 14, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Li et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image14.png
377
425
media_image14.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by General Formula VII:
PNG
media_image15.png
240
396
media_image15.png
Greyscale
.
where M is Pt(II) or Pd(II); R1 to R6 are H; Y1a to Y6d are C; U4 is N; and X is O.
Regarding claim 15, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Li et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image16.png
285
369
media_image16.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Formula VIII:
PNG
media_image17.png
218
334
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
where M is Pt(II) or Pd(II); R1 to R6 are H; Y1a to Y4d are C; and X is O.
Regarding claim 16, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Li et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image18.png
333
470
media_image18.png
Greyscale
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by General Formula IX:
PNG
media_image19.png
236
404
media_image19.png
Greyscale
,
where M is Pt(II) or Pd(II); R1 to R6 are H; Y1a to Y6d are C; U1 is NR, where R is methyl; U4 is N; and X is O.
Regarding claim 17, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Li et al discloses the following compounds:
PNG
media_image20.png
350
424
media_image20.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image21.png
302
460
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
229
313
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
195
280
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where M is Pt, identical to that recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 18, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Hatakeyama et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
218
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the formula:
PNG
media_image22.png
180
277
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
where R1l, R2l, R3l and R51 are tert-butyl and R4l is H.
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Hatakeyama et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
218
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
identical to that recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 20, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Nakano et al discloses a flat panel display, i.e. a consumer product, comprising the disclose organic light emitting device ([0530]).
Regarding claim 22, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the phosphorescent layer disclosed by Nakano et al only contains the phosphorescent emitter, i.e. the phosphorescent emitter layer consists of the phosphorescent emitting.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 18-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al (US 2015/0034927) in view of Hatakeyama et al (US 2018/0301629) and Nii et al (WO 2004/108857)
Regarding claim 1, Nakano et al discloses the following white organic light emitting device ([0279] and Figure 2):
PNG
media_image1.png
412
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where the anode (20) corresponds to the recited first electrode; the hole transporting zone (30) corresponds to the recited hole transport layer. The hole transporting zone (30) is in contact with the anode (20). The cathode (60) corresponds to the recited second electrode; and the electron transporting zone (50) corresponds to the recited electron transport layer. The electron transporting zone (50) is in contact with the cathode (60). Layers 40-44 correspond to the recited emissive layer. These emitting layers (40-44) are found between the hole transporting zone (30) and the electron transporting zone (50). The emissive layer comprises a phosphorescent emitting layer (40) and a fluorescent emitting layer (44), where the phosphorescent emitter (40) layer is disposed between the fluorescent emitting layer (44) and is in contact with the hole transporting zone (30). The fluorescent emitter layer (44) is disposed between the phosphorescent emitting layer (40) and the electron transporting zone (50). The fluorescent emitting layer (44) comprises a fluorescent emitter and a host compound ([0311] and [0314]) and emits blue light ([0279]). The phosphorescent emitting layer (40) emits yellow light ([0279]) and contains a phosphorescent emitter ([0310]). Given that the reference does not require that the host compound is necessarily present in the phosphorescent emitter layer (44), the phosphorescent emitting layer (44) can therefore contain 100 mass % of the phosphorescent emitter, within the recited range of greater than 50 % recited in the present claim.
The reference teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above; however, the reference does not disclose that the blue fluorescent emitter harvest singlet excitons as recited in the present claims.
Hatakeyama et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises the following blue light emitting polycyclic aromatic compound ([0127], [0362], and Page 3 – 1-2621):
PNG
media_image2.png
218
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as a fluorescent emitter (Abstract, [0127] and [0001]).
The reference does not explicitly disclose that this compound harvests singlet excitons; however, it is the Examiner’s position given that the reference discloses the identical compound recited in the present claims, that the compound of the reference necessarily harvests singlet excitons.
It is noted that the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compound. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. compound harvests singlet excitons would naturally arise and be achieved by a fluorescent layer comprising the fluorescent emitter compound. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot 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. See MPEP § 2112.01. 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 as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
The reference discloses that utilization of this compound in an organic light emitting device results in an excellent organic electroluminescent element (Abstract).
Given that both Nakano et al and Hatakeyama et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising blue light emitting fluorescent emitter layers, and in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the particular as taught by fluorescent emitter disclosed by Hatakeyama et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such fluorescent emitters in fluorescent emitter layer of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Nakano et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combined disclosures of Nakano et al and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above; however, Nakano et al does not disclose that phosphorescent emitter is an excimer emitter and harvests triplet excitons as recited in the present claims.
Nii et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises the following phosphorescent compound (Page 3 Lines 14-17 and Page 69 – Compound 38):
PNG
media_image23.png
185
186
media_image23.png
Greyscale
.
The compound has a phosphorescent emission maximum in the range of 400 to 700 nm (Page 1 – Lines 19-24). Accordingly, it is the Examiner’s position that the compound emits yellow-amber light as recited in the present claims.
The reference does not explicitly disclose that this compound harvests triplet excitons and is an excimer emitter. However, it is the Examiner’s position given that the reference discloses the identical compound recited in the present claims, the compound disclosed by the reference necessarily harvests triplet excitons and is an excimer emitter. It is noted that the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compound. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the compound harvests triplet excitons and is an excimer emitter, and would naturally arise and be achieved by a phosphorescent layer comprising the phosphorescent emitter compound. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot 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. See MPEP § 2112.01. 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 as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
The reference discloses that the compound has high external quantum efficiency and maximum luminance as well as luminescent characteristics (Page 123 – Lines 1-25 and Page 124 Lines 1-3).
Given that both Nakano et al and Nii et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising phosphorescent emitter, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the particular emitters as taught by Nii et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such emitters in the phosphorescent emitter layer of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Nakano et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Nii et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is clear that the compound disclosed by Nii et al are square planar complexes.
Regarding claim 4, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Nii et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is clear that the compound disclosed by Nii et al are platinum complexes
Regarding claim 5, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Nii et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Nii et al discloses that the compound emits light in the range of 400 to 700 nm, overlapping the recited range of 480 to 700 nm.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Nii et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Nii et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image24.png
409
411
media_image24.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by General Formula II:
PNG
media_image25.png
210
308
media_image25.png
Greyscale
,
where M is Pt (II), R1 to R4 are H; Y1a to Y4d are C; and X is CRR’, where R and R’ are H.
Regarding claim 18, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Nii et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Hatakeyama et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
218
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the formula:
PNG
media_image22.png
180
277
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
where R1l, R2l, R3l and R51 are tert-butyl and R4l is H.
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Nii et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Hatakeyama et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
218
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
identical to that recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 20, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Nii et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Nakano et al discloses a flat panel display, i.e. a consumer product, comprising the disclose organic light emitting device ([0530]).
Regarding claim 22, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Nii et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the phosphorescent layer disclosed by Nakano et al only contains the phosphorescent emitter, i.e. the phosphorescent emitter layer consists of the phosphorescent emitting.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 13, 18-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al (US 2015/0034927) in view of Hatakeyama et al (US 2018/0301629) and Xia et al (US 2012/0223634).
Regarding claim 1, Nakano et al discloses the following white organic light emitting device ([0279] and Figure 2):
PNG
media_image1.png
412
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where the anode (20) corresponds to the recited first electrode; the hole transporting zone (30) corresponds to the recited hole transport layer. The hole transporting zone (30) is in contact with the anode (20). The cathode (60) corresponds to the recited second electrode; and the electron transporting zone (50) corresponds to the recited electron transport layer. The electron transporting zone (50) is in contact with the cathode (60). Layers 40-44 correspond to the recited emissive layer. These emitting layers (40-44) are found between the hole transporting zone (30) and the electron transporting zone (50). The emissive layer comprises a phosphorescent emitting layer (40) and a fluorescent emitting layer (44), where the phosphorescent emitter (40) layer is disposed between the fluorescent emitting layer (44) and is in contact with the hole transporting zone (30). The fluorescent emitter layer (44) is disposed between the phosphorescent emitting layer (40) and the electron transporting zone (50). The fluorescent emitting layer (44) comprises a fluorescent emitter and a host compound ([0311] and [0314]) and emits blue light ([0279]). The phosphorescent emitting layer (40) emits yellow light ([0279]) and contains a phosphorescent emitter ([0310]). Given that the reference does not require that the host compound is necessarily present in the phosphorescent emitter layer (44), the phosphorescent emitting layer (44) can therefore contain 100 mass % of the phosphorescent emitter, within the recited range of greater than 50 % recited in the present claim.
The reference teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above; however, the reference does not disclose that the blue fluorescent emitter harvest singlet excitons as recited in the present claims.
Hatakeyama et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises the following blue light emitting polycyclic aromatic compound ([0127], [0362], and Page 3 – 1-2621):
PNG
media_image2.png
218
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as a fluorescent emitter (Abstract, [0127] and [0001]). The reference does not explicitly disclose that this compound harvests singlet excitons.; however, it is the Examiner’s position given that the reference discloses the identical compound recited in the present claims, that the compound of the reference necessarily harvests singlet excitons.
It is noted that the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compound. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. compound harvests singlet excitons would naturally arise and be achieved by a fluorescent layer comprising the fluorescent emitter compound. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot 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. See MPEP § 2112.01. 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 as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
The reference discloses that utilization of this compound in an organic light emitting device results in an excellent organic electroluminescent element (Abstract).
Given that both Nakano et al and Hatakeyama et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising blue light emitting fluorescent emitter layers, and in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the particular as taught by fluorescent emitter disclosed by Hatakeyama et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such fluorescent emitters in fluorescent emitter layer of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Nakano et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combined disclosures of Nakano et al and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above; however, Nakano et al does not disclose that phosphorescent emitter is an excimer emitter and harvests triplet excitons as recited in the present claims.
Xia et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises the following phosphorescent compounds (Abstract, Page 51 – Compound 14, and Page 57 – Compound 74):
PNG
media_image26.png
304
478
media_image26.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image27.png
224
266
media_image27.png
Greyscale
The reference does not explicitly disclose that these compounds harvest triplet excitons, emit yellow-amber light or are excimer emitters; however, it is the Examiner’s position given that the reference discloses the identical compounds recited in the present claims, the compounds disclosed by the reference necessarily harvest triplet excitons and emit yellow-amber light.
It is noted that the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compound. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the compound harvests triplet excitons, emits yellow-amber light, and is an excimer emitter, and would naturally arise and be achieved by a phosphorescent layer comprising the phosphorescent emitter compound. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot 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. See MPEP § 2112.01. 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 as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
The reference discloses that the compound have improve device efficiency, line shape and lifetime (Abstract).
Given that both Nakano et al and Xia et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising phosphorescent emitter, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the particular emitters as taught by Xia et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such emitters in the phosphorescent emitter layer of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Nakano et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Xia et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is clear that the compound disclosed by Xia et al are square planar complexes.
Regarding claim 4, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Xia et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is clear that the compound disclosed by Xia et al are platinum complexes
Regarding claim 5, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Xia et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Xia et al does not discloses that the compound emits light in the range of about 480 to about 700 nm. However, it is the Examiner’s position given that the reference discloses compound identical to those recited in the present claims, the compounds of the reference necessarily emit light in the range of about 480 to about 700 nm as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 10, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Xia et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Xia et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image28.png
310
478
media_image28.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by General Formula III:
,
PNG
media_image29.png
251
296
media_image29.png
Greyscale
,
where M is Pt (II); R1 to R4 are H; Y1a to Y4d are C; U1 and U2 are NR, where R is a substituted aryl; and X is O.
Regarding claim 13, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Xia et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Xia et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image30.png
335
371
media_image30.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by General Formula VI:
PNG
media_image31.png
245
306
media_image31.png
Greyscale
,
where M s Pt(II); R1 to R4 are H; U2 is NR, where R is a substituted aryl; and X is O.
Regarding claim 18, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Xia et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Hatakeyama et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
218
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the formula:
PNG
media_image22.png
180
277
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
where R1l, R2l, R3l and R51 are tert-butyl and R4l is H.
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Xia et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Hatakeyama et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
218
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
identical to that recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 20, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Xia et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Nakano et al discloses a flat panel display, i.e. a consumer product, comprising the disclose organic light emitting device ([0530]).
Regarding claim 22, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Xia et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the phosphorescent layer disclosed by Nakano et al only contains the phosphorescent emitter, i.e. the phosphorescent emitter layer consists of the phosphorescent emitting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/7/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786