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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to as the character spacing in line 2 of claim 20 is not correct.
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.
Claims 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 9, L11 refers to a ligand represented by Formula 1D. Additionally, n11 which refers to the number of L11 ligands is claimed to be equal to 1, 2, or 3, and M1 is claimed to be Pt. Ligand 1D is inherently a tetradentate ligand. It does not make chemical sense for n11 to be equal to anything other than 1. If n1 is equal to 2 or 3, then there would be 8 or 12 bonds to Pt, which is not chemically possible. It naturally follows that there cannot be any ligand L12 present in Formula 1, otherwise the platinum complex would not satisfy the normal valency rules for platinum. Applicants may overcome this rejection by amending n11 to be equal to 1 (only), and amending n12 to be equal to zero (only). Claims 11-13 are included in this rejection as they depend on claim 9. While claim 10 is dependent on claim 9, it recites that n11 is 1 and n12 is zero, which is the suggested way to overcome this rejection, and it is therefore not included in this rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 12-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ko et al. (US 2021/0359226).
Claim 1: Example 4 is drawn to a light-emitting device comprising an anode (a first electrode), a hole transport region, an emission region comprising two emission layers in direct contact with each other, the emission region comprising a host mixture, where the host mixture comprises as a first compound, DIC-TRZ (referred to as H1), and as a second compound, CBP, a dopant mixture, where the dopant mixture comprises a third compound, BD2 (referred to as D1), and a fourth compound, BD1, an electron transport region, and a cathode (second electrode). The first, second, third, and fourth compounds are all different from each other, and the third compound is a platinum-containing organometallic compound comprising a first ligand which comprises a carbene ligand where the carbon atom of the carbene group and the platinum are bonded together. Applicants specification teaches the HOMO of H1 (DIC-TRZ) is -5.05 eV and the HOMO of D1 (BD2) is -4.85 eV (referred to as BD0-2 in table 1 of Applicants specification). Therefore, Expression 1 of claim 1 is satisfied. Specifically, │HOMO(H1)│ - │HOMO(D1)│ is equal to │-5.05│- │-4.85│ or 0.20 eV, which is less than 0.3 eV as recited in claim 1.
Claim 2: HOMO(D1) in example 4 of Ko et al. is -4.85, which is less than or equal to about -5.0 eV, thereby anticipating claim 2.
Claims 9, 10, 12, and 13: Both the third and fourth compounds (the two blue dopants) in the device examples of Ko et al. are tetradentate, N-heterocyclic carbene-comprising platinum(II) complexes. The dopants have the formula Pt(L11) and Pt(L21) with both L11 and L12 equal to Formula 1D of claim 9 with all T groups equal to a single bond, a4 equal to zero, a1, a2, and a3 equal to 1, T52 equal to O, T51 and T53 equal to single bonds, CY11 is a C6 heterocyclic group, CY2 equal to a benzene ring, CY3 equal to a heterocyclic group, and CY4 equal to a pyridine ring. The ancillary substituents in BD1 and BD2 include isopropyl, tert-butyl, and 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-phenylbenzene, which are all groups permitted by claim 9. In BD1, n11 is 1 and n12 is 0 which anticipates claim 10. In BD1 and BD2, a4 is equal to zero, which anticipates claim 11. BD1 satisfies Formula 1-1 and BD2 satisfies Formula 2-1 of claim 12 with the T groups equal to O, all Z groups equal to N or CR, and all R groups equal to hydrogen, tert-butyl, isopropyl, or 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-phenylbenzene which anticipates claim 12. Both BD1 and BD2 have electron-donating groups at position R11a and R21a, respectively, and also have at least one electron donating group at one of the required positions of claim 13. Additionally, the electron-donating groups in BD1 and BD2 comprise iso-propyl, tert-butyl, and a group satisfying formula 10-57 of claim 13.
Claim 14: The device examples taught by Ko et al. further include compound HT28 as a capping layer. Applicants specification teaches compound CP6, which is taught as being a suitable capping layer material, and compound CP6 is identical to compound HT28 of Ko et al. Therefore, it would be expected that compound HT28 has a refractive index of greater than about 1.6, thereby anticipating claim 14.
Claim 15: In device examples 1 and 2 of Ko et al., the emission layer comprises a mixture of the first, second, third, and fourth compounds of claim 1, thereby anticipating claim 15.
Claim 16: In device examples 3 and 4 of Ko et al., the emission layer comprises a first emission layer and a second emission layer which anticipates claim 16.
Claim 17: In device example 5 of Ko et al., the emission layer comprises a first emission layer, a second emission layer, and a third emission layer in a manner which anticipates claim 17.
Claim 20: Paragraph 0460 and claim 20 of Ko et al. teaches preparing an electronic apparatus which includes a thin-film transistor comprising a source electrode and a drain electrode and wherein the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to one of the source electrode and the drain electrode, thereby anticipating claim 20.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ko et al. (US 2020/0395557, referred below as Ko A to avoid confusion with the rejection above to Ko et al.).
Claim 1: Device example 18 of Ko A is drawn to an organic light-emitting device comprising an anode (a first electrode), a hole transport region, an emission layer comprising a first compound as a hole-transporting host (HTH2), a second compound as an electron-transporting host (ETH2), a third compound which is a platinum-containing organometallic compound comprising an N-heterocyclic carbene group where the carbon atom of the carbene group is bonded to the platinum atom (BD67), and a fourth compound which is a fluorescent dopant (FD25), an electron transport region, and a cathode (a second electrode). The HOMO energy level of HTH2 is -5.51 eV, and the HOMO energy level of BD67 is -5.25 eV as taught in Table 3 of Ko A (page 121) and as applied to Expression 1 of claim 1, the absolute value of the difference of the first host and the phosphorescent platinum dopant is 0.26 eV, which is less than or equal to 0.30 eV. As such, device example 18 anticipates all of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 5: In device example 18, the first compound is a hole transporting host and the second compound is an electron transporting host, thereby anticipating claim 5.
Claim 6: In device example 18, compound HTH2 comprises a carbazole group which anticipates Formula 3-2 of claim 6 and compound ETH2 comprises a triazine group which is an electron-deficient nitrogen containing group which anticipates claim 6.
Claim 8: Compound ETH2 employed in example 18 of Ko et al. anticipates Formula 4 with all X groups equal to N, a51 equal to 0, b51 equal to 1, L51 equal to phenyl, a52 and a53 equal to 1, L52 and L53 equal to phenylene, and R52 and R53 equal to an Si(Ph)3 group, which anticipates claim 8.
Claim 15: Device example 18 of Ko A has the first, second, third, and fourth compounds present in a single emission layer, thereby anticipating claim 18.
Claim 20: Paragraph 0298 of Ko A teaches preparing an electronic apparatus which includes a thin-film transistor comprising a source electrode and a drain electrode and wherein the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to one of the source electrode and the drain electrode, thereby anticipating claim 20.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ko A (US 2020/0395557) in view of a web article. The web article is cited on the attached PTO-892 form and a copy of which is included with this Office action.
Ko A anticipates the light-emitting device of claim 1, as described above. Independent claim 19 comprises all of the limitations recited in claims 1 and 4. Example 18 of Ko A employs FD25 as a fluorescent dopant. The web article teaches that the HOMO energy level of FD25, which is referred to therein as v-DABNA, is -5.40 eV (as seen in the figure provided with this Office action). The absolute value of the difference between the HOMO energy levels of the dopants is calculated to be 0.15 which satisfies Expression 4 of claims 4 and 19.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US 2021/0359226) in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2005/0168137).
While Ko et al. does not explicitly teach that the third and fourth compounds (the first and second dopants) may be distributed within the emission layer in a non-uniform fashion as required by claim 18, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have done so given the teachings of Adamovich et al. Ko et al. and Adamovich et al. are combinable as they are both from the same field of organic electroluminescent devices. Adamovich et al. teaches that providing an emission layer having a non-uniform emissive dopant concentration the device efficiency could be increased by about 10-20% compared to analogous devices having uniform dopant distribution (paragraph 0078). With this teaching in mind, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have a non-uniform dopant distribution in the devices taught by Ko et al., and the reason for doing so would be to further increase device efficiency as taught by Adamovich et al.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko A (US 2020/0395557) in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2005/0168137).
While Ko A does not explicitly teach that the third and fourth compounds (the first and second dopants) may be distributed within the emission layer in a non-uniform fashion as required by claim 18, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have done so given the teachings of Adamovich et al. Ko A and Adamovich et al. are combinable as they are both from the same field of organic electroluminescent devices. Adamovich et al. teaches that providing an emission layer having a non-uniform emissive dopant concentration the device efficiency could be increased by about 10-20% compared to analogous devices having uniform dopant distribution (paragraph 0078). With this teaching in mind, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have a non-uniform dopant distribution in the devices taught by Ko A, and the reason for doing so would be to further increase device efficiency as taught by Adamovich et al.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US 2021/0359226).
Claim 4: In Device example 4 of Ko et al., the HOMO energy level difference between the two dopants is calculated to be 0.16 eV, as evidenced by Table 2 of Applicants specification. While this value is not less than or equal to 0.15 eV, it is submitted that this value is so close to the upper limit of 0.15 eV that these values effectively touch one another, particularly when only two significant figures are present in these measurements. That is to say, 0.154 eV and 0.156 eV would be rounded down to 0.15 eV and rounded up to 0.16 eV, meaning that these values could be even closer than 0.01 eV. Nevertheless, “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected [the claimed product and a product disclosed in the prior art] to have the same properties.” Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim 19: The rejection of claims 1 and 4 above are wholly incorporated into the rejection of claim 19. Claims 1 and 4 as described above, collectively render obvious all of the limitations of claim 19, as described above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US 2021/0359226), as applied to claim 9 above.
While the device examples of Ko et al. includes a platinum dopant which does not have a group satisfying one of formulae CY11-1 through CY11-8 as recited in claim 11, the overall teachings of Ko et al. are not limited to the working examples. Specifically, Ko et al. teaches that the third compound may be selected from compounds BD1, BD2, and Pt-1 to Pt-24 (paragraph 0235). Ko et al. further teaches that the fourth compound may be selected from the same BD1, BD2, and Pt-1 to Pt-24 as well as the iridium complexes as taught in paragraph 0236. The preparation of an organic light-emitting device where the third compound is, for example, the exemplified BD1, which includes a group which satisfies formula CY11-4 of claim 11 and a fourth compound, which does not comprise a group of Formula 1D, or which comprises a group of Formula 1D which includes a group satisfying the one recited in claim 11, which includes the platinum complexes Pt-1, Pt-3 through Pt-5, Pt-7 through Pt-12, Pt-19, through Pt-23, and all of the iridium complexes taught in paragraph 0236, would have been obvious combinations of the first and second dopants. Any one of these embodiments, which are rendered obvious by the teachings of Ko et al. would satisfy the limitation of claim 11 as BD1 comprises a ligand satisfying Formula 1D where a4 is zero and which further comprises a group satisfying Formula CY11-4, and the fourth compound (second dopant) is one which either does not comprise a ligand of Formula 1D or which comprises a ligand of Formula 1D which satisfies at least one of CY11-1 through CY11-8. Such embodiments satisfy all of the limitations of claim 11.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko A (US 2020/0395557).
While Ko A does not explicitly teach preparing a light-emitting device which satisfies Expression 2 as recited in claim 3 or that the first compound is a compound comprising at least one Si atom as required by claim 7, it is submitted that the overall teachings of Ko A render obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art the preparation of a light-emitting device which does satisfy Expression 2. For example, device example 5 of Ko A is drawn to a light-emitting device where the emission layer comprises BD67 as a dopant, ETH77 as an electron transporting host, and HTH2 as a hole transporting host. While device example 5 does not include a second fluorescent dopant, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily envisaged modifying any one of device examples 1-11 to include such a dopant. Indeed, device examples 12-15 are analogous to device examples 1-4 with the exception that they include a fluorescent dopant. The same modifications could easily be envisaged with the other device examples 5-11, including device example 5. Such a device satisfies Expression 1, as described in claim 1 above and further satisfies Expression 2 of claim 3. Specifically the HOMO energy level of ETH77 is -5.75 eV, and the HOMO energy level of HTH2 -5.51 eV. The absolute value in the difference in HOMO energy levels between ETH77 and HTH2 is 0.24 eV, which is less than 0.5 eV as required by claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 7 requires that the first compound, which as employed in Applicants specification as well as Ko A, is a hole transporting host. Ko A does teach a hole transporting host which is employed in some of the device examples, specifically compound HTH4. The structure of compound HTH4 is shown on page 122 and this compound includes at least one Si atoms, which satisfies the limitations of claim 7. However, the HOMO energy level of HTH4 is -5.64 eV as shown in Table 3. All of the exemplified dopants BD2, BD7, BD67, and BD102 have a HOMO energy level which is more than 0.3 eV as required by Expression 1 of claim 1. The calculated differences range from 0.34 eV to 0.44 eV, which is outside the 0.3 eV limit in Expression 1. Ko A does not provide any specific teachings or a specific motivation to employ a platinum dopant and a silicon-containing hole transporting host which would satisfy Expression 1 of claim 1. Without any such teaching, such a combination could only be envisioned through the use of improper hindsight reconstruction.
Relevant Art Cited
Additional prior art documents which are relevant to Applicants invention can be found on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766