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 Amendment
The amendment of 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 2, 4-6, 12-13, 16-19, and 29-30 have been canceled.
Claims 33-35 have been added.
Claims 1, 3, 7-11, 14-15, 20-28, and 31-35 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 9-12 of the reply filed 10/02/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 3, 7-11, 14-15, 20-28, and 31-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishisone et al. (US 2015/0333283 A1, hereafter Ishisone) in view of Yoo et al. (US 2019/0062357 A1, hereafter Yoo) and rejections of claims 1, 3, 7-11, 14-15, 20-28, and 31-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishisone et al. (US 2015/0333283 A1) in view of Borek et al. (“Highly Efficient, Near-Infrared Electrophosphorescence from a Pt–Metalloporphyrin Complex”, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2007, vol. 46, page 1109-1112, hereafter Borek) set forth in the Office Action of 04/02/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Ishisone appears to be directed to a light element that emits visible light ([0008]-[0009] of Ishisone; and see page 10, the last paragraph of Applicant’s response), and the claimed invention, near-infrared light is not disclosed in the colors recited in Ishisone. Applicant further argues that the proposed modification of Ishisone attempts to arrive at the claimed invention change the principle of operation of Ishisone such that the modification is improper (page 12, par. 2).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The invention of Ishisone is directed to a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a first light emitting layer, a second light emitting layer, and a second electrode, wherein the second light emitting layer comprises a second host material and a second light emitting material which is a phosphorescent material ([0007], [0045], Fig. 1A). Ishisone teaches that the second light emitting layer can further contain an additive which can form an exciplex together with the second host material ([0054]). Ishisone exemplifies 2mDBTBPDBq-II and PCBBiF as the exciplex material (i.e. the second light emitting material and the additive) of the second light emitting layer ([0141], Table 2, [0145], Table 3).
Ishisone does not disclose a specific second light emitting device whose maximum peak wavelength of the emission spectrum is in the range of 750 nm to 900 nm; however, Ishisone does teach that the second light emitting material can be an Ir complex ([0025]). Ishisone further teaches that there is no limitation on the emission colors of the first and the second light emitting materials ([0055]) (emphasis added), indicating there is no limitation on the emission wavelength of the Ir complex used in the device of Ishisone.
Yoo discloses a near-infrared (NIR) emitting organometallic compound (Formula 1 in [0008]-[0025], [0037]) used for a light emitting device ([0002], [0026]). Yoo exemplifies Compound 8 ([0119]). Yoo teaches the light emitting device comprising the Compound 8 of Yoo as the only emitter of the device provides light having maximum emission wavelength of 767.7 nm (Example 8 in Table 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
280
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yoo teaches that the light emitting device comprising Compound 8 of Yoo provides low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifetime, and enable to emit longer wavelength light ([0362]-[0363]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emitting device of Ishisone by incorporating the Compound 8 of Yoo as the phosphorescent second light emitting material as taught by Ishisone and Yoo.
As Applicant highlighted, Ishisone recites “A phosphorescent material refers to a material that emits light in the visible light region at room temperature when the T1 level relaxes to the ground state” ([0009]). However, the emission of the Compound 8 of Yoo with maximum emission wavelength of 767.7 nm is a visible light, as evidenced by Sliney (“What is light? The visible spectrum and beyond” Eye 2016, vol. 30, page 222-229, hereafter Sliney). Sliney evidences that the upper limit a visible spectrum is generally taken between 760 and 830 nm (emphasis added) (page 226, col. 1, line 3) and the wavelength limit of the visible light even extends up to about 1100 nm (Abstract, Fig. 6).
Thus, an ordinary skill in the art would recognize the Compound 8 of Yoo having maximum emission wavelength of 767.7 nm emits visible light, since the wavelength of 767.7 nm is within the range of visible spectrum such that the compound can be used as the phosphorescent light emitting material in the light emitting device of Ishisone.
Regarding the rejections of Ishisone in view of Borek, a similar response is provided (refer to sections 89-95 of the last Office Actinon). Ishisone teaches a light emitting device comprising a second light emitting layer containing a second host material and a second light emitting material which is a phosphorescent material ([0007], [0045], Fig. 1A). Ishisone teaches that the second light emitting layer may further contains an additive which can form an exciplex together with the second host material ([0054]). Ishisone exemplifies 2mDBTBPDBq-II and PCBBiF as the exciplex material (i.e. the second light emitting material and the additive) of the second light emitting layer ([0141], Table 2, [0145], Table 3). Ishisone teaches that the second light emitting material can be a Pt complex ([0052]). Ishisone further teaches that there is no limitation on the emission colors of the first and the second light emitting material ([0055]) (emphasis added) (emphasis added), indicating there is no limitation on the emission wavelength of the Ir complex used in the device of Ishisone.
Borek discloses an organometallic compound Pt(tpbp) (Fig. 1) used for a light emitting device (page 1110, col. 2). Borek teaches the maximum peak emission wavelength of the emission spectrum of a thin film of Pt(tpbp) is at around 775 nm (Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
273
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Borek teaches that the compound of Borek provides high EQE, lifetime, and efficiency (page 1111, col. 2)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emitting device of Ishisone by incorporating the Pt(tpbp) of Borek as the second light emitting material, as taught by Ishisone and Borek. An ordinary skill in the art would recognize the compound Pt(tpbp) of Borek can be used as a phosphorescent light emitting material in the light emitting device of Ishisone because the compound emits light having maximum emission wavelength of 775 nm which is visible light.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not appear to disclose the feature of “the light emitting device is configured to emit both visible light and near-infrared light” and the cited reference do not inherently possessed the claimed feature of “an energy of the maximum peak in the PL spectrum of the exciplex is larger than an energy of the peak of the lowest energy side absorption band in the absorption spectrum of the light emitting organic compound by 0.2 eV (or 0.35 eV) or more” (page 11, paragraph 3 of Applicant’s response).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The emission wavelength of the light emitting device, the energy of the PL spectrum of the exciplex, and the absorption spectrum of the emitting compound are the properties of the light emitting materials and the light emitting device comprising the light emitting materials such that the properties are inherent to the light emitting device of Ishisone in view of Yoo since the light emitting layer materials are directed to the materials of the instant invention.
Ishisone in view of Yoo teaches the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Yoo comprising a first electrode, a first light emitting layer, a second light emitting layer containing 2mDBTBPDBq-II, PCBBiF, and Compound 8 of Yoo (dopant, 5 wt%), and a second electrode (see section 43 of the last Office Action).
It is reasonable to presume that the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Yoo inherently possesses the claimed properties: 7) an energy of a maximum peak in a PL spectrum of the host material is higher than an energy of a peak of a lowest energy side absorption band in an absorption spectrum of the light emitting organic compound by 0.2 eV or more (claims 1, and 8-9), and 8) the light emitting device is configured to emit both visible light and near-infrared light (claims 1 and 8).
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification discloses in one embodiment of the invention that: 7) an energy of a maximum peak in a PL spectrum of the host material is higher than an energy of a peak of a lowest energy side absorption band in an absorption spectrum of the light emitting organic compound by 0.2 eV or more ([0013], [0018], Figs. 8 and 12), and 8) the light emitting device is configured to emit both visible light and near-infrared light ([0013], Figs. 6-7).
The light emitting layer materials of PCBBiF, 2mDBTBPDBq-II, and Compound 8 in the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Yoo have each identical structure as the first organic compound (PCBBiF) and the second organic compound (2mDBTBPDBq-II) in the specific embodiment of the instant disclosure (Device 1 in [0219]-[0220], Table 1). Furthermore, the light emitting material (Compound 8 of You) of the light emitting device has substantially similar structure as the light emitting organic compound (Ir(dmdpbq)2(dpm)) of the specific embodiment of the instant disclosure (Device 1 in [0219]-[0220], Table 1).
Therefore, the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Yoo inherently possesses the claimed properties 7) and 8).
Similarly, Ishisone in view of Borek teaches the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Borek comprising a first electrode, a first light emitting layer, a second light emitting layer containing 2mDBTBPDBq-II, PCBBiF, and Pt(tpbp) of Borek (dopant, 5 wt%), and a second electrode (see section 98 of the last Office Action).
It is reasonable to presume that the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Borek inherently possesses the claimed properties 7) and 8) above.
The light emitting layer materials of PCBBiF, 2mDBTBPDBq-II, and Pt(tpbp) in the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Borek have each identical structure as the first organic compound (PCBBiF) and the second organic compound (2mDBTBPDBq-II) in the specific embodiment of the instant disclosure (Device 1 in [0219]-[0220], Table 1). Furthermore, the light emitting material (Pt(tpbp) of Borek) of the light emitting device has identical structure as the specific embodiment of the instant disclosure (i.e. tetraphenyltetrabenzo porphyrin platinum (II) in [0128]).
Therefore, the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Borek inherently possesses the claimed properties 7) and 8).
For at least this reason, the arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that any rejection that a light emitting organic compound which allegedly emits near infrared light of Yoo or Borek can be combined with exciplex (host material) of Ishisone is clearly improper hindsight reconstruction using the subject application as a roadmap or blueprint for combining compounds (page 12, paragraph 3 of Applicant’s response).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Ishisone teaches a light emitting device comprising a second host material and a second light emitting material which is a phosphorescent material ([0007], [0045], Fig. 1A). Ishisone teaches that the second light emitting layer may further contains an additive which can form an exciplex together with the second host material ([0054]). Ishisone exemplifies 2mDBTBPDBq-II and PCBBiF as the exciplex material (i.e. the second light emitting material and the additive) of the second light emitting layer ([0141], Table 2, [0145], Table 3). Ishisone teaches that the second light emitting material can be an Ir complex ([0025]) and there is no limitation on the emission colors of the second light emitting materials ([0055]).
The only deficiency of the light emitting device of Ishisone is the claimed NIR emitting complex as the light emitting material; however, the claimed NIR complex used as the light emitting material of a light emitting device is known from a prior art by Yoo.
Yoo discloses a near-infrared (NIR) emitting organometallic compound (Formula 1 in [0008]-[0025], [0037]) used for a light emitting device ([0002], [0026]). Yoo exemplifies Compound 8 ([0119]). Yoo teaches that the light emitting device comprising Compound 8 of Yoo provides low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifetime, and enable to emit longer wavelength light ([0362]-[0363]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emitting device of Ishisone by incorporating 2mDBTBPDBq-II and PCBBiF as the exciplex second host material and the Compound 8 of Yoo as the second light emitting material in the device of Ishisone, as taught by Ishisone and Yoo.
Similarly, with respect to the rejection of Ishisone in view of Borek, the only deficiency of the light emitting device of Ishisone is the claimed NIR emitting complex as the light emitting material; however, the claimed NIR complex used as the light emitting material in a light emitting device is known from a prior art by Borek.
Borek discloses a near-infrared (NIR) emitting organometallic compound Pt(tpbp) (Fig. 1) used for a light emitting device (page 1110, col. 2). Borek teaches that the compound of Borek provides high EQE, lifetime, and efficiency (page 1111, col. 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emitting device of Ishisone by incorporating 2mDBTBPDBq-II and PCBBiF as the exciplex second host material and the Pt(tpbp) of Borek as the second light emitting material, as taught by Ishisone and Borek.
For at least this reason, the arguments are not found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7-11, 14-15, 20-28, and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishisone et al. (US 2015/0333283 A1, hereafter Ishisone) in view of Yoo et al. (US 2019/0062357 A1, hereafter Yoo).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7-11, 14-15, 20-28, and 31-35, Ishisone discloses a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a first light emitting layer, a second light emitting layer, and a second electrode, wherein the second light emitting layer comprises a second host material and a second light emitting material which is a phosphorescent material ([0007], [0045], Fig. 1A).
Ishisone teaches that the second light emitting layer may further contains an additive which can form an exciplex together with the second host material ([0054]). Ishisone exemplifies 2mDBTBPDBq-II and PCBBiF as the exciplex material (i.e. the second light emitting material and the additive) of the second light emitting layer ([0141], Table 2, [0145], Table 3).
Ishisone does not disclose a specific second light emitting device whose maximum peak wavelength of the emission spectrum is in the range of 750 nm to 900 nm; however, Ishisone does teach that the second light emitting material can be an Ir complex ([0025]). Ishisone further teaches that there is no limitation on the emission colors of the first and the second light emitting materials, and they can be same or different ([0055]). Ishisone teaches the doping concentration of the second light emitting material being 5 wt% (Table 2).
Yoo discloses a near-infrared (NIR) emitting organometallic compound (Formula 1 in [0008]-[0025], [0037]) used for a light emitting device ([0002], [0026]). Yoo exemplifies Compound 8 ([0119]).
PNG
media_image1.png
280
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yoo teaches that the light emitting device comprising Compound 8 of Yoo provides low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifetime, and enable to emit longer wavelength light ([0362]-[0363]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emitting device of Ishisone by incorporating the Compound 8 of Yoo as the second light emitting material with the doping concentration of 5 wt%, as taught by Ishisone and Yoo.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a NIR emitting light emitting device with low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifetime, based on the teaching of Yoo.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the Ir complexes as the second light emitting material would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Yoo comprising a first electrode, a first light emitting layer, a second light emitting layer containing 2mDBTBPDBq-II, PCBBiF, and Compound 8 of Yoo (dopant, 5 wt%), and a second electrode.
The Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Yoo reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the claimed properties of the device:
1) a maximum peak wavelength of the first peak in an emission spectrum is in 750 nm to 900 nm (claim 1),
2) the first peak has higher intensity than the second peak by a range of 10 times to 10000 times (claims 10 and 11),
3) a difference between a single excitation energy level (S1) and a triplet excitation energy level (T1) of the host material is <= 0.2 eV (claim 3),
4) the host material exhibits thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) (claim 14),
5) the HOMO level of the first organic compound is higher than the HOMO level of the second organic compound and a difference between the HOMO of the first organic compound and the LUMO of the second organic compound is 1.90 eV to 2.75 eV (claim 1),
6) the first organic compound and the second organic compound form an exciplex, wherein the exciplex exhibits TADF (claims 1, 7, and 15),
7) an energy of a maximum peak in a PL spectrum of the host material is higher than an energy of a peak of a lowest energy side absorption band in an absorption spectrum of the light emitting organic compound by 0.2 eV or more (claims 1, and 8-9),
8) the light emitting device is configured to emit both visible light and near-infrared light (claims 1 and 8),
9) an energy of the second peak is higher than an energy of a peak of the lowest energy side absorption band in an absorption spectrum by 0.35 eV (claim 10),
10) a rising wavelength of a maximum peak on a short wavelength side in the emission spectrum is greater than or equal to 650 nm (claims 21 and 31-32), and a rising wavelength of a maximum peak on a short wavelength side in a PL spectrum of the light-emitting organic compound in a solution is greater than or equal to 650 nm (claim 22),
11) external quantum efficiency is greater than or equal to 1% (claim 23),
12) CIE chromaticity coordinates (x1, y1) at a first radiance and CIE chromaticity coordinates (c2, y2) at a second radiance satisfy one or both of x1>x2 and y1>y2 (claim 24).
It is reasonable to presume that the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Yoo inherently possesses the claimed properties 1) through 12).
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification discloses in one embodiment of the invention that:
1) a maximum peak wavelength of the first peak in an emission spectrum is in 750 nm to 900 nm, the emission spectrum further comprises a second peak at a wavelength of 450 nm to 650 nm ([0010], [0019], [0240], Figs. 6-7),
2) the first peak has higher intensity than the second peak by a range of 10 times to 10000 times ([0010], [0019], [0240], Figs. 6-7),
3) a difference between a single excitation energy level (S1) and a triplet excitation energy level (T1) of the host material is <= 0.2 eV ([0016]),
4) the host material exhibits thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) ([0011], [0017]),
5) the HOMO level of the first organic compound is higher than the HOMO level of the second organic compound and the HOMO of the first organic compound and the LUMO of the second organic compound is 1.90 eV to 2.75 eV ([0012], [0020], [0249]),
6) the first organic compound and the second organic compound form an exciplex, wherein the exciplex exhibits TADF ([0012], [0018]),
7) an energy of a maximum peak in a PL spectrum of the host material is higher than an energy of a peak of a lowest energy side absorption band in an absorption spectrum of the light emitting organic compound by 0.2 eV or more ([0013], [0018], Figs. 8 and 12),
8) the light emitting device is configured to emit both visible light and near-infrared light ([0013], Figs. 6-7),
9) an energy of the second peak is higher than an energy of a peak of the lowest energy side absorption band in an absorption spectrum by 0.35 eV ([0014], Figs. 6-7 and 12),
10) a rising wavelength of a maximum peak on a short wavelength side in the emission spectrum is greater than or equal to 650 nm ([0022], Figs. 6-7), and a rising wavelength of a maximum peak on a short wavelength side in a PL spectrum of the light-emitting organic compound in a solution is greater than or equal to 650 nm ([0023], Fig. 13),
11) external quantum efficiency is greater than or equal to 1% ([0024], [0244]),
12) CIE chromaticity coordinates (x1, y1) at a first radiance and CIE chromaticity coordinates (c2, y2) at a second radiance satisfy one or both of x1>x2 and y1>y2 ([0025], Fig. 15).
The light emitting layer materials of PCBBiF, 2mDBTBPDBq-II, and Compound 8 in the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Yoo have each identical structure as the first organic compound (PCBBiF) and the second organic compound (2mDBTBPDBq-II) in the specific embodiment of the instant disclosure (Device 1 in [0219]-[0220], Table 1). Furthermore, the light emitting material (Compound 8 of You) of the light emitting device has substantially similar structure as the light emitting organic compound (Ir(dmdpbq)2(dpm)) of the specific embodiment of the instant disclosure (Device 1 in [0219]-[0220], Table 1).
Additionally, Yoo teaches that the light emitting device comprising the Compound 8 of Yoo as the only emitter of the device provides near-infrared light having maximum emission wavelength of 767.7 nm (Example 8 in Table 1).
While the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Yoo has two light emitting layers, the emission color of the first light emitting layer can be same as that of the second light emitting layer as taught by Ishisone ([0055]); thus, the overall emission spectrum including the main emission peak of the light emitting device should be similar as the emission spectrum of a light emitting device containing a single light emitting layer containing PCBBiF, 2mDBTBPDBq-II, and Compound 8 of Yoo only, otherwise same.
Therefore, the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Yoo inherently possesses the claimed properties 1) through 12), meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 3, 7-11, 14-15, 20-24, and 31-35.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Yoo is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Ishisone in view of Yoo does not disclose a specific light emitting apparatus comprising the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Yoo and a transistor.
Ishisone teaches that the light emitting device can be incorporated in a light emitting apparatus (a pixel portion, 402 in Fig. 4) with a transistor (411 in Fig. 4B) which is a part of a light emitting module (active matrix light emitting device in Fig. 4A and 4B and [0104]-[0105] and) which contains an integrated circuit (403 in Fig. 4B).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Yoo by incorporating it into the pixel of an active matrix light emitting device as taught by Ishisone and Yoo.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the light emitting devices in the pixel of an active matrix light emitting device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a light emitting apparatus (i.e. pixel) comprising the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Yoo and a transistor, meeting all the limitations of claim 25.
The modification also provides Light emitting module (i.e. active matrix light emitting device) comprising the light emitting apparatus and an integrated circuit, meeting all the limitations of claim 26.
Ishisone in view of Yoo does not disclose a specific electronic device comprising the Light emitting module of Ishisone as modified by Yoo, and a speaker; however, Ishisone does teach that a light emitting device can be incorporated into an electronic device containing a housing (mobile phone in Fig. 6D).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting module of Ishisone as modified by Yoo by incorporating it into an electronic device, a mobile phone, as taught by Ishisone and Yoo.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the light emitting modules in an electronic device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Electronic device of Ishisone as modified by Yoo comprising the Light emitting module of Ishisone as modified by Yoo and a housing, meeting all the limitations of claim 27.
The Electronic device of Ishisone as modified by Yoo reads on a lighting device of the instant claim 28 because a mobile phone lights up (or illuminates) from at least the display part of the device. Furthermore, the Electronic device of Ishisone as modified by Yoo comprises the Light emitting apparatus of Ishisone as modified by Yoo and a housing, meeting all the limitations of claim 28.
Claims 1, 3, 7-11, 14-15, 20-28, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishisone et al. (US 2015/0333283 A1) in view of Borek et al. (“Highly Efficient, Near-Infrared Electrophosphorescence from a Pt–Metalloporphyrin Complex”, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2007, vol. 46, page 1109-1112, hereafter Borek).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7-11, 14-15, 20-28, and 31-32, Ishisone discloses a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a first light emitting layer, a second light emitting layer, and a second electrode, wherein the second light emitting layer comprises a second host material and a second light emitting material which is a phosphorescent material ([0007], [0045], Fig. 1A).
Ishisone teaches that the second light emitting layer may further contains an additive which can form an exciplex together with the second host material ([0054]). Ishisone exemplifies 2mDBTBPDBq-II and PCBBiF as the exciplex material (i.e. the second light emitting material and the additive) of the second light emitting layer ([0141], Table 2, [0145], Table 3).
Ishisone does not disclose a specific second light emitting device whose maximum peak wavelength of the emission spectrum is in the range of 750 nm to 900 nm; however, Ishisone does teach that the second light emitting material can be a Pt complex ([0052]). Ishisone further teaches that there is no limitation on the emission colors of the first and the second light emitting material, and they can be same or different ([0055]). Ishisone teaches the doping concentration of the second light emitting material being 5 wt% (Table 2).
Borek discloses a near-infrared (NIR) emitting organometallic compound Pt(tpbp) (Fig. 1) used for a light emitting device (page 1110, col. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
273
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Borek teaches that the compound of Borek provides high EQE, lifetime, and efficiency (page 1111, col. 2)
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emitting device of Ishisone by incorporating the Pt(tpbp) of Borek as the second light emitting material with the doping concentration of 5 wt%, as taught by Ishisone and Borek.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a NIR emitting light emitting device with high EQE, lifetime, and efficiency, based on the teaching of Borek.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the Ir complexes as the second light emitting material would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Borek comprising a first electrode, a first light emitting layer, a second light emitting layer containing 2mDBTBPDBq-II, PCBBiF, and Pt(tpbp) of Borek (dopant, 5 wt%), and a second electrode.
The Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Borek reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the claimed properties of the device:
1) a maximum peak wavelength of the first peak in an emission spectrum is in 750 nm to 900 nm (claim 1),
2) the first peak has higher intensity than the second peak by a range of 10 times to 10000 times (claims 10 and 11),
3) a difference between a single excitation energy level (S1) and a triplet excitation energy level (T1) of the host material is <= 0.2 eV (claim 3),
4) the host material exhibits thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) (claim 14),
5) the HOMO level of the first organic compound is higher than the HOMO level of the second organic compound and a difference between the HOMO of the first organic compound and the LUMO of the second organic compound is 1.90 eV to 2.75 eV (claim 1),
6) the first organic compound and the second organic compound form an exciplex, wherein the exciplex exhibits TADF (claims 1, 7, and 15),
7) an energy of a maximum peak in a PL spectrum of the host material is higher than an energy of a peak of a lowest energy side absorption band in an absorption spectrum of the light emitting organic compound by 0.2 eV or more (claims 1, and 8-9),
8) the light emitting device is configured to emit both visible light and near-infrared light (claims 1 and 8),
9) an energy of the second peak is higher than an energy of a peak of the lowest energy side absorption band in an absorption spectrum by 0.35 eV (claim 10),
10) a rising wavelength of a maximum peak on a short wavelength side in the emission spectrum is greater than or equal to 650 nm (claims 21 and 31-32), and a rising wavelength of a maximum peak on a short wavelength side in a PL spectrum of the light-emitting organic compound in a solution is greater than or equal to 650 nm (claim 22),
11) external quantum efficiency is greater than or equal to 1% (claim 23),
12) CIE chromaticity coordinates (x1, y1) at a first radiance and CIE chromaticity coordinates (c2, y2) at a second radiance satisfy one or both of x1>x2 and y1>y2 (claim 24).
It is reasonable to presume that the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Borek inherently possesses the claimed properties 1) through 12).
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification discloses in one embodiment of the invention that:
1) a maximum peak wavelength of the first peak in an emission spectrum is in 750 nm to 900 nm, the emission spectrum further comprises a second peak at a wavelength of 450 nm to 650 nm ([0010], [0019], [0240], Figs. 6-7),
2) the first peak has higher intensity than the second peak by a range of 10 times to 10000 times ([0010], [0019], [0240], Figs. 6-7),
3) a difference between a single excitation energy level (S1) and a triplet excitation energy level (T1) of the host material is <= 0.2 eV ([0016]),
4) the host material exhibits thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) ([0011], [0017]),
5) the HOMO level of the first organic compound is higher than the HOMO level of the second organic compound and the HOMO of the first organic compound and the LUMO of the second organic compound is 1.90 eV to 2.75 eV ([0012], [0020], [0249]),
6) the first organic compound and the second organic compound form an exciplex, wherein the exciplex exhibits TADF ([0012], [0018]),
7) an energy of a maximum peak in a PL spectrum of the host material is higher than an energy of a peak of a lowest energy side absorption band in an absorption spectrum of the light emitting organic compound by 0.2 eV or more ([0013], [0018], Figs. 8 and 12),
8) the light emitting device is configured to emit both visible light and near-infrared light ([0013], Figs. 6-7),
9) an energy of the second peak is higher than an energy of a peak of the lowest energy side absorption band in an absorption spectrum by 0.35 eV ([0014], Figs. 6-7 and 12),
10) a rising wavelength of a maximum peak on a short wavelength side in the emission spectrum is greater than or equal to 650 nm ([0022], Figs. 6-7), and a rising wavelength of a maximum peak on a short wavelength side in a PL spectrum of the light-emitting organic compound in a solution is greater than or equal to 650 nm ([0023], Fig. 13),
11) external quantum efficiency is greater than or equal to 1% ([0024], [0244]),
12) CIE chromaticity coordinates (x1, y1) at a first radiance and CIE chromaticity coordinates (c2, y2) at a second radiance satisfy one or both of x1>x2 and y1>y2 ([0025], Fig. 15).
The light emitting layer materials of PCBBiF, 2mDBTBPDBq-II, and Pt(tpbp) in the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Borek have each identical structure as the first organic compound (PCBBiF) and the second organic compound (2mDBTBPDBq-II) in the specific embodiment of the instant disclosure (Device 1 in [0219]-[0220], Table 1). Furthermore, the light emitting material (Pt(tpbp) of Borek) of the light emitting device has identical structure as the specific embodiment of the instant disclosure (i.e. tetraphenyltetrabenzo porphyrin platinum (II) in [0128]).
Additionally, Borek teaches that the HOMO and LUMO of the Pt(tpbp) are each -4.9 eV, and -2.5 eV (page 1110, col. 1). Borek teaches the peak of a lowest energy side absorption band is around 620 nm (Fig. 2). Borek teaches the maximum peak emission wavelength of the emission spectrum of a thin film of Pt(tpbp) is at around 775 nm (Fig. 3).
While the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Borek has two light emitting layers, the emission color of the first light emitting layer can be same as that of the second light emitting layer as taught by Ishisone ([0055]); thus, the overall emission spectrum including the main emission peak of the light emitting device should be similar as the emission spectrum of a light emitting device containing a single light emitting layer containing PCBBiF, 2mDBTBPDBq-II, and Pt(tpbp) of Borek only, otherwise same.
Therefore, the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Borek inherently possesses the claimed properties 1) through 12), meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 3, 7-11, 14-15, 20-24, and 31-32.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Borek is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Ishisone in view of Borek does not disclose a specific light emitting apparatus comprising the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Borek and a transistor.
Ishisone teaches that the light emitting device can be incorporated in a light emitting apparatus (a pixel portion, 402 in Fig. 4) with a transistor (411 in Fig. 4B) which is a part of a light emitting module (active matrix light emitting device in Fig. 4A and 4B and [0104]-[0105] and) which contains an integrated circuit (403 in Fig. 4B).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Borek by incorporating it into the pixel of an active matrix light emitting device as taught by Ishisone and Borek.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the light emitting devices in the pixel of an active matrix light emitting device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a light emitting apparatus (i.e. pixel) comprising the Light emitting device of Ishisone as modified by Borek and a transistor, meeting all the limitations of claim 25.
The modification also provides Light emitting module (i.e. active matrix light emitting device) comprising the light emitting apparatus and an integrated circuit, meeting all the limitations of claim 26.
Ishisone in view of Borek does not disclose a specific electronic device comprising the Light emitting module of Ishisone as modified by Borek, and a speaker; however, Ishisone does teach that a light emitting device can be incorporated into an electronic device containing a housing (mobile phone in Fig. 6D).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting module of Ishisone as modified by Borek by incorporating it into an electronic device, a mobile phone, as taught by Ishisone and Borek.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the light emitting modules in an electronic device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Electronic device of Ishisone as modified by Borek comprising the Light emitting module of Ishisone as modified by Borek and a housing, meeting all the limitations of claim 27.
The Electronic device of Ishisone as modified by Borek reads on a lighting device of the instant claim 28 because a mobile phone lights up (or illuminates) from at least the display part of the device. Furthermore, the Electronic device of Ishisone as modified by Borek comprises the Light emitting apparatus of Ishisone as modified by Borek and a housing, meeting all the limitations of claim 28.
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 SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm 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, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (571)272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights