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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Specification filed 06/02/22 recites the structures on pages 270-382 which are all graphically unclear due to their low resolution and small size. All the structures need to be bigger, with chemical bonds and atoms clearly drawn (with solid lines).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim recites “The organic light-emitting device of claim 18” which lacks antecedent basis. The Office has interpreted the preamble to instead recite: “The
Correction is required.
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.
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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Andrade et al. (US 2002/0197511 A1) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2021/0083205 A1) and Lee et al. (US 2019/0058144 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-15 and 17-20, D’Andrade et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light-emitting device) comprising a pair of electrodes, interposed therein a hole-transporting layer, light-emitting layer, and electron-transporting layer (Claim 9; Fig. 1); the light-emitting layer comprises a plurality of emissive dopants which are phosphorescent (organometallic compounds) ([0011]; Claim 5). Each of the phosphorescent dopants is doped into a separate emission band which can be overlapping; alternatively, the emission band of one phosphorescent dopant “may be contained in its entirety within the doped region of another phosphorescent dopant” ([0012], [0059], [0063]). However, D’Andrade et al. does not explicitly disclose the first and second compounds as recited in Claim 1.
Hwang et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
272
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 92) (second compound) such that M2 = iridium, n11 = 2, n12 = 1, n13 = 0, L11 = Applicant’s Formula 2-1 (with ring A1 = C5 heterocyclic group pyridine), ring A2 = C6 carbocyclic group (benzene), d2 = 0, d1 = 1, e1 = 1, W1 = single bond, Z1 = Si(CH3)3, Y1 = N, and Y2 = C), and L12 = Applicant’s Formula 2-2 (with d3 = 1, e3 = 1, W3 = single bond, Z3 = unsubstituted C2 alkyl group (ethyl), d4 = 0, Y3 = N, Y4 = C, ring A3 = C7 heterocyclic group (benzimidazole), and ring A4 = C12 heterocyclic group (dibenzofuran)) of Applicant’s Formula 2; Y39 = N-[W3-(Z3)e3] (N-ethyl) of Applicant’s Formula NR30; Y49 = O, Y23-24 = C, and ring A40 = C6 carbocyclic group (benzene) of Applicant’s Formula CR24. Hwang et al. discloses its inventive compounds as dopant material in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device (in combination with host material), the use of which results in a device with improved external quantum efficiency and lifespan ([0038], [0258]-[0259]). It would have been obvious to incorporate the compound as disclosed by Hwang et al. (above) into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by D’Andrade et al. (as dopant material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Hwang et al., which teaches that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in a device with improved external quantum efficiency and lifespan. However, D’Andrade et al. in view of Hwang et al. does not explicitly disclose a first compound as recited in Claim 1.
Lee et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
290
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 10) (first compound) such that M1 = platinum, n4 = 0, n1-3 = 1, T11-13 = single bond, X5 = O, X6-8 = chemical bond, ring CY1 = C6 carbocyclic group (benzene), X1 = C, X2 = N, ring CY2 = C7 heterocyclic group (benzimidazole), a2 = 1, b2 = 1, L2 = single bond, c1 = 1, R2 = unsubstituted C1 alkyl group (methyl), X3 = C, a3 = 1, b3 = 1, L3 = single bond, c3 = 1, R3 = unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl group (carbazolyl), a4 = 0, X4 = N, and ring CY4 = C5 heterocyclic group (pyridine) of Applicant’s Formula 1; X29 = N-[(L2)b2-(R2)c2] (N-methyl) and X2 = N of Applicant’s Formula CY2(16); X11-14 = CH, X29 = N-[(L2)b2-(R2)c2] (N-methyl), X21-23 = CH, X32 = C(N-carbazolyl), X31 = X33 = CH, and X41-44 = CH of Applicant’s Formula 1-1. Lee et al. discloses its inventive compounds as dopant material in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device ([0078]-[0079], [0173]); the use results in a device with high emission efficiency and long lifespan ([0006], [0426]). It would have been obvious to incorporate the compound as disclosed by Lee et al. (above) into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by D’Andrade et al. in view of Hwang et al. (as additional dopant material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Lee et al., which teaches that the use of its inventive compound in such a manner results in a device with high emission efficiency and long lifespan.
Regarding Claim 16, it is the position of the Office that the use of the compounds as disclosed by Hwang et al. and Lee et al. would inherently read on the emission limitation as recited in the claim. Evidence is provided by the fact that the compounds as disclosed by Hwang et al. and Lee et al. (above) are exactly identical to the Applicant’s preferred embodiments 1 and 1-2, respectively (see pages 10 and 791 of the present national phase publication).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786