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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on each of 11/04/2022 and 01/16/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-11, 13-15, 18, 21, 23-26 are amended, claims 27-32 are new, and claims 2-3, 8, 12, 16-17, 19-20, 22 are cancelled due to the applicant's preliminary amendment.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-11, 13-15, 18, 21, and 23-32 are pending.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 18, 21, 23-26, and 31-32 are 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, the claimed are indefinite because the scope of the final limitation in claim 1 and the limitation of claim 15 comprises.
Claim 1 recites "wherein a value (eV) obtained by converting into energy a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex and the organic compound having a mass ratio of 1:1 is smaller than a difference (eV) between a HOMO level of the organometallic complex and a LUMO level of the organic compound by greater than or equal to 0.5 eV."
Claim 15 recites "wherein a value (eV) obtained by converting into energy a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex and the organic compound having a mass ratio of 1:1 is smaller than the difference (eV) between the HOMO level of the organometallic complex and the LUMO level of the organic compound by greater than or equal to 0.1 eV."
First, the unit of eV is placed in parathesis, does this mean the unit of measurement being in eV optional?
Next, it is unclear what is meant by a value being smaller than by greater than or equal to 0.5 eV. Does this mean the difference between the two must be 0.5 eV or greater?
For purposes of examination, the claim will be read such that wherein A is "a value obtained by converting a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex and the organic compound having a mass ratio of 1:1 into energy" and B is "a difference between a HOMO level of the organometallic complex and a LUMO level of the organic compound", the following equation is met: B – A ≥ 0.5 eV. Or, put another way, a difference between a HOMO level of the organometallic complex and a LUMO level of the organic compound is greater than a value obtained by converting a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex and the organic compound having a mass ratio of 1:1 into energy by 0.5 eV or more.
Claims 7, 9, 21, and 23-26 are rejection for being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites wherein when a mixed film of the organometallic complex and the organic compound is analyzed by mass spectrometry, a value obtained by subtracting 2 from the sum of a molecular weight of the organometallic complex, a molecular weight of the organic compound, and an atomic weight of an alkaline earth metal contained in the organometallic complex is observed as m/z." However, the claim previous recites "an organometallic complex of an alkali metal." Therefore, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the organometallic complex must comprise an alkali metal, and alkaline earth metal, or both.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that the value is obtained by subtracting 2 from the sum of a molecular weight of the organometallic complex, a molecular weight of the organic compound, and an atomic weight of the alkali metal contained in the organometallic complex is observed as m/z.
Claims 11, 13-15, 18, and 31-32 are rejection for being dependent on indefinite claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 18, 21, 24-29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kadoma et al. WO-2020194097-A1, see US-20220158100-A1 for English language equivalent referred to herein (hereinafter "Kadoma").
Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
The applied reference has a common inventor and applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Regarding claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 18, 21, 24-29, and 31, Kadoma discloses a light-emitting device comprising: a first electrode / hole-injection layer / hole-transport layer / light-emitting layer / electron-transport layer comprising PyA1PQ:Liq in a 1:1 weight ratio / electron-injection layer / second electrode (¶ [0357] and TABLE 3). Kadoma discloses PyA1PQ having the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
278
215
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 43) and Liq having the structure 8-hydroxyquinolinatolithium (¶ [0169]), which is an organometallic complex of lithium. Kadoma discloses an electronic device comprising the light emitting device wherein the device further comprises a transistor, a substrate, a microphone, an operation button, a housing, a speaker (¶ [0022]).
Kadoma appears silent with respect to the properties of: (1) wherein the organometallic complex and the organic compound form an exciplex in combination; (2) wherein a value (eV) obtained by converting into energy a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex and the organic compound having a mass ratio of 1:1 is smaller than a difference (eV) between a HOMO level of the organometallic complex and a LUMO level of the organic compound by greater than or equal to 0.5 eV; (3) wherein a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex and the organic compound having a mass ratio of 1:1 is greater than or equal to 570 nm; (4) wherein a difference between a HOMO level of the organometallic complex and a LUMO level of the organic compound is less than or equal to 2.9 eV; and (5) wherein when a mixed film of the organometallic complex and the organic compound is analyzed by mass spectrometry, a value obtained by subtracting 2 from the sum of a molecular weight of the organometallic complex, a molecular weight of the organic compound, and an atomic weight of an alkaline earth metal contained in the organometallic complex is observed as m/z.
The instant specification recites that PyA1PQ and Liq form an exciplex (see specification paragraph [0301]). The instant specification recites that the mixed film of PyA1PQ and Liq was analyzed by mass spectrometry and a value obtained by subtracting 2 from the sum of a molecular weight of Liq, a molecular weight of PyA1PQ, and an atomic weight of Li was observed as m/z (¶ [0303]). Additionally, the instant specification recites Table 6, shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
172
821
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Table 6 recites that a value obtained by converting into energy a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex LiQ and the organic compound PyA1PQ having a mass ratio of 1:1 is 0.6 eV smaller than a difference between a HOMO level of the organometallic complex and a LUMO level of the organic compound (see specification Table 3), which falls within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.5 eV. Table 6 recites that a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex and the organic compound having a mass ratio of 1:1 is 588 nm, which falls within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 570 nm. Table 6 recites that a difference between a HOMO level of the organometallic complex and a LUMO level of the organic compound is equal to 2.7 eV, which falls within the claims range of less than or equal to 2.9 eV.
Since Kadoma teaches the electron transport layer comprising PyA1PQ: LiQ, the same structure as disclosed by the applicant, the properties of (1)-(5) above are considered to be inherent, absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP § 2112.
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.
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 23, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadoma et al. WO-2020194097-A1, see US-20220158100-A1 for English language equivalent referred to herein (hereinafter "Kadoma") as applied to claims 1, 4, and 10 above.
Regarding claims 23, 30, and 32, Kadoma discloses the device as described above with respect to claims 1, 4, and 10.
Kadoma does not specifically disclose a device as disclosed above wherein the light emitting layer contains a host material and a light-emitting material, and wherein the light-emitting material emits blue fluorescent light. However, Kadoma teaches wherein the light emitting layer may comprise a light-emitting substance (guest material) and a host material (¶ [0129]) and the light-emitting substance (guest material) may be a blue fluorescent material (¶ [0130] and ¶ [0187], ¶ [0190]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kadoma by forming the light emitting layer comprising a host material and a light-emitting material, wherein the light-emitting material emits blue fluorescent light, as taught by Kadoma. One would have been motivated to do so because Kadoma teaches wherein the light emitting layer may comprise a light-emitting substance (guest material) and a host material (¶ [0129]) and the light-emitting substance (guest material) may suitably be a blue fluorescent material. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-15, 18, 21, 25, 27-29, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kido et al. EP-1011155-A2 (hereinafter "Kido") in view of Yen et al. US-20140166988-A1 (hereinafter "Yen").
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-15, 18, 21, 25, 27-29, 31, Kido teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising, between an anode electrode and a cathode electrode, at least one luminescent layer and an organic layer adjacent to the cathode electrode, the organic layer being a mixed layer of an electron-transporting organic compound and an organic metal complex compound containing at least one member selected from the group including an alkali metal ion, an alkali earth metal ion and a rare earth metal ion (¶ [0011]). Kido discloses examples of the organic metal complex include 8-quinolinolatolithium (¶ [0027]) and teaches examples of the device including Example 1 comprising 8-quinolinolatolithium (Liq) in the mixed organic layer in a ratio of 1:1 with an electron-transporting organic compound (¶ [0044]). Kido discloses the device on a substrate (¶ [0022]).
Kido does not specifically disclose a device (1) wherein the organometallic complex and the organic compound form an exciplex in combination; (2) wherein a value (eV) obtained by converting into energy a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex and the organic compound having a mass ratio of 1:1 is smaller than a difference (eV) between a HOMO level of the organometallic complex and a LUMO level of the organic compound by greater than or equal to 0.5 eV; (3) wherein a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex and the organic compound having a mass ratio of 1:1 is greater than or equal to 570 nm; (4) wherein a difference between a HOMO level of the organometallic complex and a LUMO level of the organic compound is less than or equal to 2.9 eV; and (5) wherein when a mixed film of the organometallic complex and the organic compound is analyzed by mass spectrometry, a value obtained by subtracting 2 from the sum of a molecular weight of the organometallic complex, a molecular weight of the organic compound, and an atomic weight of an alkaline earth metal contained in the organometallic complex is observed as m/z.
However, Kido teaches that examples of suitable organic compounds used as the electron-transporting organic compound include condensed heterocyclic compounds such as phenanthroline as well as derivatives thereof (¶ [0026]).
Yen teaches 2,9-bis(naphthalene-2-yl)-4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline (NBphen) is used as an electron transporting material in organic EL device for its high thermal stability and long life-time (¶ [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kido by forming the electron-transporting organic compound in the organic layer out of NBPhen, as taught by Yen. One would have been motivated to do so because Kido teaches suitable organic compounds used as the electron-transporting organic compound include phenanthroline derivatives and Yen teaches NBPhen, which is a phenanthroline derivative, as suitable for use as an electron transporting material in an organic EL device. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Additionally, Yen teaches NBphen used as electron transporting material in organic EL device results in high thermal stability and long life-time and therefore forming the electron-transporting organic compound out of NBPhen in the device of Kido would yield the benefit of high thermal stability and long life-time, as described above.
The modified device of Kido in view of Yen comprises the following layer structure: anode electrode / at least one luminescent layer / organic layer comprising 8-quinolinolatolithium and NBPhen / cathode electrode.
Kido and Yen appears silent with respect to the properties of: (1) wherein the organometallic complex and the organic compound form an exciplex in combination; (2) wherein a value (eV) obtained by converting into energy a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex and the organic compound having a mass ratio of 1:1 is smaller than a difference (eV) between a HOMO level of the organometallic complex and a LUMO level of the organic compound by greater than or equal to 0.5 eV; (3) wherein a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex and the organic compound having a mass ratio of 1:1 is greater than or equal to 570 nm; (4) wherein a difference between a HOMO level of the organometallic complex and a LUMO level of the organic compound is less than or equal to 2.9 eV; and (5) wherein when a mixed film of the organometallic complex and the organic compound is analyzed by mass spectrometry, a value obtained by subtracting 2 from the sum of a molecular weight of the organometallic complex, a molecular weight of the organic compound, and an atomic weight of an alkaline earth metal contained in the organometallic complex is observed as m/z.
The instant specification recites that NBPhen and Liq form an exciplex (see specification paragraph [0271]). The instant specification recites that the mixed film of NBPhen and Liq was analyzed by mass spectrometry and a value obtained by subtracting 2 from the sum of a molecular weight of Liq, a molecular weight of NBPhen, and an atomic weight of Li was observed as m/z (¶ [0275]). Additionally, the instant specification recites Table 3, shown below.
PNG
media_image3.png
194
825
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Table 3 recites that a value obtained by converting into energy a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex LiQ and the organic compound NBPhen having a mass ratio of 1:1 is 0.6 eV smaller than a difference between a HOMO level of the organometallic complex and a LUMO level of the organic compound (see specification Table 3), which falls within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.5 eV. Table 3 recites that a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex and the organic compound having a mass ratio of 1:1 is 621 nm, which falls within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 570 nm. Table 3 recites that a difference between a HOMO level of the organometallic complex and a LUMO level of the organic compound is equal to 2.9 eV, which falls within the claims range of less than or equal to 2.9 eV.
Since Kido in view of Yen teaches the electron transport layer comprising NBPhen : LiQ, the same structure as disclosed by the applicant, the properties of (1)-(5) above are considered to be inherent, absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP § 2112.
Claims 23, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kido et al. EP-1011155-A2 (hereinafter "Kido") in view of Yen et al. US-20140166988-A1 (hereinafter "Yen") as applied to claims 1, 4, and 10, respectively and further in view of Seo et al. US-20040137270-A1 (hereinafter "Seo").
Regarding claims 23, 30, and 32, Kido in view of Yen teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claims 1, 4, and 10, respectively.
Kido in view of Yen does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the light emitting layer comprises a host and light emitting material and the light emitting material emits blue fluorescent light.
Seo teaches a blue emitting material of a chemical formula 1 used in the light emitting layer of an organic luminescent device (¶ [0017]), use with a host compound (¶ [0078]). Seo teaches the emitting material of the chemical formula 1 is a blue emitting material with high color purity and a high luminescent efficiency (¶ [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the luminescent layer in the device of Kido in view of Yen out of the blue emitting material and host of Seo, based on the teaching of Seo. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain high color purity and high luminescent efficiency, as taught by Seo.
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kido et al. EP-1011155-A2 (hereinafter "Kido") in view of Yen et al. US-20140166988-A1 (hereinafter "Yen") as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Yamazaki et al. US-12455446-B2 (hereinafter "Yamazaki").
Regarding claims 24 and 26, Kido in view of Yen teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Kido in view of Yen does not specifically teach a device as discussed above as part of an electronic device further comprising a housing and a sensor, an operation button, a speaker, or a microphone.
Yamazaki teaches a display device including a plurality of pixels, wherein the plurality of pixels each include a light-emitting device, a sensor device, and a circuit device (Col. 2, seventh paragraph) and further comprising a housing provided with the display device, a sensor provided in the housing (Col. 4, third paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the light emitting device in the display device of Yamazaki out of the device of Kido in view of Yen, because this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of a operational display device. See MPEP § 2143.1.(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Oyamada et al. WO-2009110075-A1 teaches 2,9-bis (2-naphthyl) -4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline (NBPhen) as electron transporting organic semiconductor for use in an electron transport organic semiconductor layer, which is formed of an organic semiconductor doped with a metal acid salt compound (see abstract and paragraph [0062]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786