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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2022-0022459, filed on 02/21/2022.
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 1–20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–20 recite a light-emitting device comprising: a first electrode; a second electrode facing the first electrode; and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer, wherein the emission layer comprises a hole transporting first host, an electron transporting second host, a phosphorescent first dopant, and a delayed fluorescence second dopant, and the first host, the second host, the first dopant, and the second dopant are different from one another. Additionally, the first dopant and second dopant must satisfy two requirements. The first requirement is that the lowest excited triplet energy level of the first dopant must be less than or equal to the lowest excited singlet energy of the second dopant, as described in Expression 1. The second requirement is that the spectral overlap integral of an emission spectrum of the first dopant and an absorption spectrum of the second dopant, as described by Expression 2, is equal to or greater than about 0.5 x 1014.
Per MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(ii), the written description requirement for a claimed genus 12. may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by (A) actual reduction to practice, (B) reduction to drawings, or (C) by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.
The claims require the limitations described above. The specification only provides three examples of their preferred embodiment and seven total examples of such a combination of first host, second host, first dopant, and second dopant that meets this requirement, wherein the multiple compounds are used repeatedly in the examples. The specification provides exceptionally broad guidance on what materials that might be usable to meet the claimed properties as the first host, second host, first dopant, and second dopant and no further description of other means of identifying which species would possess the claimed common structural characteristics or shared trait which would result in the claimed relationship. For example, the first host, second host, and second dopant could be any one of a small molecule, an organometallic compound, or a polymer, which encompasses a vast number of potential compounds and even greater number of combinations. Additionally, the only working examples of the first dopant are tetradentate platinum complexes, which is a small subset of phosphorescent dopants and does not constitute a representative number of species. In claim 12, structural formulae are provided for the first host and the second host. In claims 13 and 14, the first dopant is described to comprise platinum with a tetradentate ligand, which is supported by the specification, however it is still a broad guidance without a structural formula. In claim 15 and 16, the second dopant is described as comprising a first and second ring which are fused together, wherein the first ring is a 6-membered ring comprising boron, and the second ring is a pyrrole group, a furan group, a thiophene group, a benzene group, a pyridine group, a pyrimidine group, or a piperidine group, which is a broad guidance without a structural formula. The limited number of examples described in the written description do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus.
Therefore, claims 1–20 are rejected as lacking adequate written description.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for Examples 1–3 and Comparative Examples 1–3, and 6 of the instant specification, does not reasonably provide enablement for selecting the first dopant and second dopant. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to select the first dopant and second dopant of the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Independent Claim 1 requires a first host, a second host, a first dopant, and a second dopant. Additionally, the first dopant and second dopant must satisfy two requirements. The first requirement is that the lowest excited triplet energy level of the first dopant must be less than or equal to the lowest excited singlet energy of the second dopant, as described in Expression 1. The second requirement is that the spectral overlap integral of an emission spectrum of the first dopant and an absorption spectrum of the second dopant, as described by Expression 2, is equal to or greater than about 0.5 x 1014.
Case law holds that applicant' s specification must be “commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]” Ex Parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1990). Otherwise, undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant' s invention. The test for undue experimentation as to whether or not [Claimed Feature] within the scope of the claims can be used [meet the claim requirements] as claimed and whether the claims meet the test is stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed.Cir. 1988). Upon applying this test to claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 11 – 20, it is believed that undue experimentation would be required because:
Nature of the invention:
Independent Claim 1 requires a first host, a second host, a first dopant, and a second dopant. Additionally, the first dopant and second dopant must satisfy two requirements. The first requirement is that the lowest excited triplet energy level of the first dopant must be less than or equal to the lowest excited singlet energy of the second dopant, as described in Expression 1. The second requirement is that the spectral overlap integral of an emission spectrum of the first dopant and an absorption spectrum of the second dopant, as described by Expression 2, is equal to or greater than about 0.5 x 1014.
State of the prior art:
Prior art discusses a first host, a second host, a first phosphorescent dopant, and a second delayed fluorescent dopant, however they rarely include the singlet/triplet energy values of the first and second dopant, and the spectral overlap integral value of the emission spectrum of the first dopant and the absorption spectrum of the second dopant. These pieces of data are needed to evaluate Expression 1 and Expression 2 of claim 1.
The level of one of ordinary skill:
One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to meet the limitations of claim 1 given the singlet/triplet energy values of the first and second dopant, and the spectral overlap integral value of the emission spectrum of the first dopant and the absorption spectrum of the second dopant.
The level of predictability in the art:
The emission spectrum, absorption spectrum, and singlet/triplet energy values of a dopant are defined by the dopant’s structure.
Amount of direction provided:
The specification includes 88 organometallic complexes as the first dopant [0289], but it only provides the singlet/triplet energy values and the emission spectra for 5 complexes. Additionally, the specification includes 17 examples of delayed fluorescence compounds [0335], but it only provides the singlet/triplet energy values and the absorption spectra of the 4 compounds.
The existence of working examples:
The specification provides 7 examples which satisfy claim 1. These examples only use tetradentate platinum complexes as the first dopant.
Notably, three of the tetradentate platinum complexes provided in the examples will be charged as drawn (shown below). This further adds to a lack of guidance provided for the selection of the first dopant. Additionally, motivation or benefits for having the first dopant being charged is not discussed.
PNG
media_image1.png
182
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the
content of the disclosure:
In order to evaluate Expression 1 and Expression 2 of claim 1, the singlet/triplet energy values of the first and second dopant, and the spectral overlap integral value of the emission spectrum of the first dopant and the absorption spectrum of the second dopant are needed. A UV-Visible spectrometer could be used to measure the absorption spectra of compounds. A fluorimeter could be used to measure the emission spectra of compounds. The lowest singlet energy can be calculated from the emission peak wavelength. The lowest triplet energy can be calculated from the emission peak wavelength of an emission spectrum taken at 4 K. These experiments would have to be done for any compound in the prior art which could qualify as the first dopant and second dopant to evaluate Expression 1 and Expression 2.
Based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention of claim 1 without undue experimentation.
Claims 2–20 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore, for the reasons outlined above with respect to claim 1, the specification does not enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
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 1–11, 13–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2022/0093878, hereafter Kim).
Regarding Claims 1–11, 13–16, Kim teaches the organic light-emitting device of Example 12 including an anode, a cathode, and an emission layer comprising a first host to transport holes (HT2), a second host to transport electrons (ET2), a first phosphorescent dopant (S12), and a second delayed fluorescent dopant (E2), shown below [0350] – [0354] [Table 7].
PNG
media_image2.png
325
245
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
249
319
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
267
243
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
233
320
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 1, Kim teaches the spectral overlap integral of the emission spectrum of compound S12 and the absorption spectrum of compound E2 is 4.89 x 1014 M-1cm-1nm4 [Table 10]. This is greater than about 0.5 x 1014 M-1cm-1nm4, satisfying Expression 2 of claim 1.
However, Kim is silent to the T1 energy of compound S12 and the S1 energy of compound E2.
Compound S12 is identical to compound G of the instant specification. Additionally, compound E2 is identical to compound H of the instant specification [0575]. As a result, they will inherently have identical singlet and triplet energy values.
As evidenced by Table 4 of the instant specification, the T1 energy of compound G (i.e. compound S12) is 2.594755 eV, and the S1 energy of compound H (i.e. compound E2) is 2.654839 eV. Therefore T1(D1) ≤ S1(D2), satisfying Expression 1 of claim 1.
Per Claims 2 and 3, Kim is silent to the emission peak wavelengths of compound S12 and compound E2. However, as discussed above, they are identical to compound G and compound H of the instant specification. Table 2 of the instant specification recites that the emission peak wavelength of compound G (i.e. compound S12) is 470 nm, and the emission peak wavelength of compound H (i.e. compound E2) is 467 nm, meeting the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, the emission peak wavelength of compound S12 is greater than the emission peak wavelength of compound E2, reading on the limitation of claim 3.
Per Claim 4, Kim teaches the triplet energy of the sensitizer (compound S12) is transferred to an emitter (compound E2). By transferring excitons to an emitter, an organic light-emitting device will have an improved efficiency [0036].
Per Claim 5, Kim teaches the proportion of emission components emitted from the emitter (compound E2) may be greater than or equal to about 80% [0063].
Per Claim 6, Kim is silent to the emission peak wavelengths of compound S12 and compound E2. However, as discussed above, they are identical to compound G and compound H of the instant specification. Table 5 of the instant specification recites Comparative Example 6 comprising compound G (i.e. compound S12) and compound H (i.e. compound H) wherein CIEx is 0.135 and CIEy is 0.177. A CIEy of 0.177 reads on Applicants’ limitation as evidenced by the instant specification which recites “about” may mean within ±20%, ±10%, or ±5% [0065]. 0.177 is within ±20% of 0.160.
Per Claims 7 and 8, Kim teaches Example 12 wherein the weight ratio of the first host (compound H2) and second host (compound ET2) are 44.75 each, the weight ratio of the first dopant (compound S12) is 10, and the weight ratio of the second dopant (compound E2) is 0.5 [Table 7]. The sum of the weight ratios of the first and second dopant is 10.5, which is within the range of 0.1 parts by weight to about 30 parts by weight, reading on the limitation of claim 8.
Per Claim 9, Kim is silent to the S1 and T1 energy values of compound S12 and compound E2. However, as discussed above, they are identical to compound G and compound H of the instant specification. According to Table 4 of the instant specification, the T1 energy of compound G (i.e. compound S12) is 2.594755 eV, and the S1 energy of compound H (i.e. compound E2) is 2.654839 eV. Therefore T1(D1) < S1(D2), satisfying Expression 1-1.
Per Claim 10, Kim teaches the spectral overlap integral of the emission spectrum of compound S12 and the absorption spectrum of compound E2 is 4.89 x 1014 M-1cm-1nm4 [Table 10].
Per Claim 11, as recited in the instant specification, the term “electron transport moiety” as used herein may include a cyano group, a phosphine oxide group, a sulfoxide group, a sulfonate group, an π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C1-C60 cyclic group, or any combination thereof [0121]. The hole transporting host (compound H2) does not comprise an electron transporting moiety. The electron transporting compound (compound ET2) comprises two cyano groups.
Per Claims 13 and 14, compound S12 comprises platinum and a tetradentate ligand.
Per Claim 15, compound E2 does not comprise a transition metal.
Per Claim 16, compound E2 comprises a 6-membered ring comprising boron, and a benzene group which are condensed together (shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
233
320
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 2021/0257575 A1, hereafter Yoon) in view of Tabata et al. (US 2020/0388781 A1, hereafter Tabata).
Regarding Claim 1–8, 10–20, Yoon teaches a light-emitting device with low driving voltage, excellent external quantum efficiency, and/or improved lifespan characteristics including a first electrode, a second electrode, and an emission layer between the two electrodes, wherein the emission layer includes a host, a first dopant, and a second dopant [0004] – [0010]. This is exemplified in Example 3 wherein the emissive layer comprises a host (mCBP), a first phosphorescent dopant (D1-3), and a second delayed fluorescence dopant (D2-1) [0460] – [0464].
However, Yoon does not teach a device embodiment comprising two host compounds.
Yoon further teaches the host may include a first host and a second host wherein the first host may be a hole transport compound, and the second host may be an electron transport compound [0143]. Tabata teaches that by using plural host compounds, it is possible to adjust transfer of charge, thereby it is possible to achieve high efficiency of an organic EL element [0136].
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 use two host compounds in the emissive layer, based on the teaching of Yoon. The motivation for doing so would have been to adjust the transfer of charge and thereby increase the efficiency of an OLED, as taught by Tanaka.
The first host is mCBP as taught in Example 3, but the second host is not defined.
Yoon teaches a host may include one of Compound H1 to H130 [0181].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose H37 as the second host, because it would have been choosing between H1 to H130, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host in the emission layer of the light-emitting device of Yoon and possessing the benefits taught by Yoon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising H37 having the benefits taught by Yoon in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting emission layer comprises a first host (mCBP), a second host (H37), a first dopant (D1-3), and a second dopant (D2-1), shown below.
PNG
media_image7.png
223
262
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
303
277
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
253
247
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
217
272
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 1, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since it comprises a first hole transporting host (mCBP), a second electron transporting host (H37), a first phosphorescent dopant (D1-3), and a second delayed fluorescence dopant (D2-1).
The T1 energy level of the first dopant (D1-3) is 2.67 eV, while the S1 energy level of the second dopant (D2-1) is 2.67 eV [Table 4]. Therefore T1(D1) ≤ S1(D2).
The spectral overlap integral of the first dopant (D1-3) and the second dopant (D2-1) is 1.60 x 1015 M-1cm-1nm4 [Table 3].
Per Claims 2 and 3, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since the emission peak wavelength for D1-3 is 462 nm and the emission peak wavelength for D2-1 is 462 nm [Table 2].
Per Claim 4, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since Yoon teaches excitons may transition from the T1 state of the first dopant to the S1 state of the second dopant, and then the excitons may transition to the ground state, thus emitting light from the emission layer [0058].
Per Claim 5, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since Yoon teaches the second dopant may contribute greater than or equal to 80% of the whole emission components emitted from the emission layer [0058].
Per Claim 6, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since Example 3 which uses D1-3 as the first dopant and D2-1 as the second dopant has a CIEx of 0.127 and a CIEy of 0.132 [Table 5]. Applicant’s limitation requires that CIEy is in the range of about 0.135 to about 0.160. A CIEy of 0.132 reads on Applicants’ limitation as evidenced by the instant specification which recites “about” may mean within ±20%, ±10%, or ±5% [0065]. 0.132 is within ±5% of 0.135.
Per Claims 7 and 8, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since Yoon teaches the amount of the first dopant to the amount of the second dopant may be 0.1 parts by weight to 30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the emission layer [0061]. In that case, the sum of first host and second host is 69.9 parts by weight.
Per Claim 10, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since the spectral overlap integral of the first dopant (D1-3) and the second dopant (D2-1) is 1.60 x 1015 M-1cm-1nm4 [Table 3].
Per Claim 11, as recited in the instant specification, the term “electron transport moiety” as used herein may include a cyano group, a phosphine oxide group, a sulfoxide group, a sulfonate group, an π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C1-C60 cyclic group, or any combination thereof [0121]. The light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since the hole transporting first host compound (mCBP) does not comprise an electron transporting moiety and the electron transporting second host compound (H37) contains a π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C3 cyclic group (triazine).
Per Claim 12, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since the first host (mCBP) reads on Formula 1, and the second host (H37) reads on Formula 2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image11.png
163
265
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
223
262
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X1 is N[(L1a)m1a-R3],
L1a is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenylene),
m1a is 2,
X2 is a single bond,
ring A1 and ring A2 are each a C6 carbocyclic group (benzene),
R1 and R2 are each hydrogen,
a1 and a2 are each 4,
R3 is an unsubstituted C12 heterocyclic group (carbazole).
PNG
media_image12.png
180
155
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
303
277
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X32, X34, and X36 are each N,
X31, X33, and X35 are C(R31), C(R33), and C(R35), respectively,
R31 and R33 are each an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
R35 is a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl) substituted with two R10a groups, wherein each R10a is an unsubstituted C12 heterocyclic group (carbazole).
Per Claims 13 and 14, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since the first dopant (D1-3) is an organometallic compound comprising platinum and a tetradentate ligand (shown below).
PNG
media_image9.png
253
247
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 15, 16 and 17, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since the second dopant (D2-1) does not comprise a transition metal, has a 6-membered ring comprising boron condensed to a benzene group (ring 1 and ring 2, respectively), and a tert-butyl group (circled).
PNG
media_image13.png
217
272
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 18, Yoon teaches the light-emitting device, as described above, may be included in an electronic apparatus [0387].
Per Claim 19, Yoon teaches the electronic apparatus may further include a thin-film transistor in addition to the light-emitting device as described above. The thin-film transistor may include a source electrode, a drain electrode, wherein any one of the source electrode or the drain electrode may be electrically connected to any one of the first electrode or the second electrode of the light-emitting device [0394].
Per Claim 20, Yoon teaches the electronic apparatus may further include in addition to the light-emitting device, i) a color filter, ii) a color conversion layer, or III) a color filter and a color conversion layer [0388].
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, the light-emitting device, as described above, does not read on Applicants’ limitation since the T1 energy of the first dopant (D1-3) is 2.67 eV, while the S1 energy of the second dopant (D2-1) is 2.67 eV [Table 4]. Since the T1 energy of the first dopant is not less than the S1 energy of the second dopant, Expression 1-1 is not satisfied.
Therefore, an alternative first dopant and second dopant must be used to satisfy Expression 1-1.
For the first dopant, Yoon teaches the first dopant may include an organometallic compound represented by Formula 40 [0184], exemplified by compounds D1-2 [0275] (shown below), wherein R41 and R42 are each represented by an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl).
PNG
media_image14.png
292
321
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
262
247
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Yoon does not teach an exemplified compound like compound D1-2 wherein R41 is a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl), but R42 is a C4 alkyl group (tert-butyl).
However, Yoon does teach compound D1-3 wherein R42 is a C4 alkyl group (tert-butyl) (circled below).
PNG
media_image16.png
271
247
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
262
247
media_image17.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a C4 alkyl group (tert-butyl) as R42 in compound D1-2, because it would have been choosing between phenyl and tert-butyl, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the first dopant in the emission layer of the organic light-emitting device of Yoon and possessing the low driving voltage, excellent external quantum efficiency, and/or improved lifespan benefits [0004] taught by Yoon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by/devices comprising Formula 40 having the benefits taught by Yoon in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified version of compound D1-2 is shown below.
PNG
media_image18.png
234
252
media_image18.png
Greyscale
For the second dopant, Yoon teaches the second dopant my include a heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 11(4) [0308], exemplified by compound 12-8 [0323] (shown below), wherein Y12 and Y11 are each *–N(R16)–*, while R12, R13, and R16 are each an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl) (shown below).
PNG
media_image19.png
269
244
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
314
270
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Yoon does not teach an exemplified compound like compound 12-8 wherein R12, R13, and R16 are each a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl), with R12 and R13 being substituted with two R10a which are each an unsubstituted C4 alkyl group (tert-butyl), while R16 is substituted with two R10a, which are each an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound 12-8 wherein R12, R13, and R16 are each a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl), with R12 and R13 being substituted with two R10a which are each an unsubstituted C4 alkyl group (tert-butyl), while R16 is substituted with two R10a, which are each an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl), because it would have been choosing between the substituents listed for R12, R13, and R16 , which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the second dopant in the emission layer of the organic light-emitting device of Yoon and possessing the low driving voltage, excellent external quantum efficiency, and/or improved lifespan benefits [0004] taught by Yoon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by/devices comprising Formula 11(4) having the benefits taught by Yoon in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified version of Compound 12-8 is shown below.
PNG
media_image21.png
259
247
media_image21.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute modified compound D1-2 for compound D1-3 and substituted modified compound 12-8 for compound D2-1 in the light-emitting device as described above, because it would have been substituting one known element for another to obtain the predictable results. One would be motivated to make these substitutions to obtain a light-emitting device possessing the low driving voltage, excellent external quantum efficiency, and/or improved lifespan benefits [0004] taught by Yoon. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Per Claims 1 and 9, the light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation of claim 1 since modified compound D1-2 is nearly identical to the instant specification’s compound D1-1 and modified compound 12-8 is identical to the instant specification’s compound D2-1 [0575] (shown below). They will therefore have an identical spectral overlap integral of 0.91 x 1014 M-1cm-1nm4 as evidenced by the instant specification’s Table 3, satisfying Expression 2, absent evidence otherwise.
PNG
media_image18.png
234
252
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
223
202
media_image22.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image21.png
259
247
media_image21.png
Greyscale
They will also have identical singlet and triplet energy values. Table 4 of the instant specification recites that compound D1-1 (i.e. modified compound D1-2) has a T1 energy of 2.695239 eV and compound D2-1 (i.e. modified compound 12-8) has a S1 energy of 2.712932 eV. Therefore T1(D1) < S1(D2), satisfying Expression 1 and Expression 1-1, absent evidence otherwise, which reads on Applicants’ limitations of claim 1 and claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kwon et al. (WO 2023/033380 A1) teaches the organic light-emitting device of Example 1, which comprises compound G and compound H of the instant specification. However, it does not comprise two host materials. Kwon teaches that more than one host material may be used.
Lee et al. (US 2021/0184151 A1) teaches the organic light-emitting device of Example 1, comprising a hole transporting first host, an electron transporting second host, a platinum based phosphorescent dopant, and a pyrene dopant. Lee further teaches compound 4-7 to compound 4-12 which are delayed fluorescence dopants. A substitution of the pyrene dopant for a delayed fluorescence dopant would read on Applicants’ independent claim 1.
Kim et al. (US 2022/0209121 A1) teaches an organic light emitting device represented by Figure 9 comprising an EML including a delayed fluorescence first compound, a multi-resonance delayed fluorescence second compound, and a phosphorescent compound. It may further comprise a hole transporting host, and an electron transporting host. This would read on Applicants’ independent claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/J.R.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789