Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al (WO 2021199948 A1, hereinafter US 20230134165 A1 is used as an English equivalent) in view of Kim et al (KR 20120032054 A).
Saito discloses an OLED comprising a host material [0366], a phosphorescent compound having a structure similar to the claimed Chemical Formula 1 that is an iridium containing dopant [claim 1, p51] and a fluorescent compound (F) having a boron and nitrogen skeleton that reads on claimed Chemical Formula 2, for example F11:
PNG
media_image1.png
187
196
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[p103] which is the Compound 2-5 of claim 12. For 100 parts by mass of the phosphor and the fluorescent compound (F), the compound (F) is present in 0.1 parts by mass to 30 parts by mass [0101]. The OLED may include additional injection and transporting layers [0468].
Saito does not disclose the specific phosphorescent dopants of claimed Chemical Formula 1.
Kim discloses OLEDs comprising in the light emitting material a phosphorescent dopant having the generic formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
201
228
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[claim 1] wherein the LHS ligand contains halogen, nitro, and cyano groups [claim 1] and reads on the chemical Formula A and the ligand L reads on the claimed formula B1 and B2. An example of the main ligand includes:
PNG
media_image3.png
165
134
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[0054] and others read on Chemical Formula A [0045 et seq]. The ligand L includes the structure:
PNG
media_image4.png
133
115
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[0028] which reads on the Chemical Formula B1, as well as the structure:
PNG
media_image5.png
125
109
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[0032] wherein R228 and R208 can join to form an ethylene group
PNG
media_image6.png
60
78
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[0040] and henceforth reads on Chemical Formula B1. Kim teaches that the phosphorescent dopants have excellent luminous efficiency and lifetime comparison with existing dopant material, and have moderate color coordination [abstract].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the claimed phosphorescent dopants in the OLED emitting layer of Saito because Kim teaches that the phosphorescent dopants have excellent luminous efficiency and lifetime comparison with existing dopant material, and have moderate color coordination.
Regarding claim 2, at least many if not all of the embodiments of Saito will have the claimed overlap over 35%. For instance, Example BD1 uses phosphorescent dopant P3 with an emission peak 450 nm and FWHM of 49.9 nm and fluorescent dopant F2 with absorption peak of 451 nm and FWHM of 21.4 nm [Tables 2 and 3]. Since the peaks are almost exactly the same wavelength, they will stack on top of one another. Nearly all of the absorption peak area will be encompassed by the emission peak area. Using the FWHM to estimate the ratio of the areas, the absorption peak is about 40% of the area under the emission peak (21.4/49.9), so well over 40% of the area under both peaks.
Regarding claim 3, Saito discloses that the difference between the max emission peak of the phosphorescent compound and the max absorption peak of the fluorescent dopant is preferably between -15 and 20 nm [0111].
Regarding claim 4, Saito discloses that |TP|−|SF| is preferably −0.30 or more and 0.50 or less [0281]. TP is lowest triplet excited state of the phosphorous compound [abstract], i.e. the LUMOPD, and SF is the lowest singlet excited state of the fluorescent compound [0044], i.e. LUMOFD. In terms of the claimed inequation A, Saito discloses 0.5 >= LUMOFD - LUMOPD >= -0.30.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Saito teaches that energy is efficiently transferred from the phosphorescent material of formula 1 to the fluorescent compound (F) [0370]. In order to have energy transfer from the phosphorescent compound to the fluorescent compound (F), the HOMOFD should be equal to or higher than the HOMOPD, and the LUMOPD is preferably equal to or higher than the LUMOFD (i.e. a wider bandgap for the in order to allow energy to flow phosphorescent to fluorescent compounds.
Regarding claim 6, these are the required bandgaps of red, green, and blue visible light phosphorescent emitters. See Liu et al (US 20250221301 A1) [0002] and Sathee (attached NPL) [p3].
Regarding claim 14, energy is transferred from the host material, to the phosphorescent material, and also to the fluorescent material compound (F) [0370]. The host material has higher energy level of the lowest triplet excited state TH than the TP and TF [0371] and TP > TF [0107] so TH> TP> TF. It is also preferable that the lowest singlet excited state of the host is larger than TF [0371] and therefore it will in most embodiments be greater than SF, and several examples of SP are greater than SF in the examples [Table 1 p113].
Regarding claim 15, Saito discloses the host compound
PNG
media_image7.png
154
329
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[p74] which is a position isomer of the claimed 3-1.
Claim(s) 1, 4-14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim876 et al (US 20210202876 A1) in view of Kim et al (KR 20120032054 A).
Kim876 discloses an OLED comprising a host material, a phosphorescent compound iridium containing dopant [0075] and a fluorescent dopant exemplified by
PNG
media_image8.png
421
441
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[p7] which is the Compound 2-1 of claim 12. The light emitting layer includes 0.1 to 30wt% each of fluorescent dopant and phosphorescent dopant [0166]. The OLED may include additional injection and transporting layers [0047]. The host and dopants have the energy ratios of claim 14 [Fig. 2]. The OLED is used in a display device comprising a substrate, a thin film transistor, and the OLED on the thin film transistor used as a subpixel [0013].
Kim876 does not disclose the specific phosphorescent dopants of claimed Chemical Formula 1.
Kim, discussed above, discloses the claimed phosphorescent dopants.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the claimed phosphorescent dopants in the OLED emitting layer of Kim876 because Kim teaches that the phosphorescent dopants have excellent luminous efficiency and lifetime comparison with existing dopant material, and have moderate color coordination.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Kim876 teaches that energy is efficiently transferred from the phosphorescent dopant to the fluorescent dopant [0048 et seq]. In order to have energy transfer from the phosphorescent compound to the fluorescent compound (F), the HOMOFD should be equal to or higher than the HOMOPD, and the LUMOPD is preferably equal to or higher than the LUMOFD (i.e. a wider bandgap for the in order to allow energy to flow phosphorescent to fluorescent compounds.
Regarding claim 6, these are the required bandgaps of red, green, and blue visible light phosphorescent emitters. See Liu et al (US 20250221301 A1) [0002] and Sathee (attached NPL) [p3].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766